#1393 - James Wilks & Chris Kresser - The Game Changers Debate

0:00

all right here we go uh first of all um welcome james i really appreciate you

0:07

having me on my

0:08

pleasure um and uh welcome again chris uh so this is essentially uh giving you

0:14

an opportunity to

0:16

refute some of the things that chris has said about your film we should tell

0:19

everybody that you

0:20

you're the producer of the game changers yeah i'm one of two producers uh i

0:25

know you also from of

0:26

course from the ultimate fighter yeah ufc and chris this is your what fourth

0:30

appearance here

0:31

like that fourth or fifth fourth or fifth um did you get a chance to see what

0:36

chris had said yeah

0:38

i've watched it you watched it okay i've made a bunch of notes excellent let's

0:41

start from the

0:42

beginning um the beginning of the show the beginning of your film you talked

0:47

about the gladiators and

0:48

all that stuff and the the fact that you were shocked to find out that they

0:52

they had eaten a

0:54

vegetarian diet yeah i mean you know that's been misrepresented right so even

0:59

before the film came

1:00

out people were like oh there's this vegan film coming out it's vegan

1:03

propaganda people were judging

1:04

the film before they'd seen it right and the vegan sort of community really

1:08

pushed it like hey look at

1:09

this documentary so there's been things saying they claimed that the gladiators

1:13

were vegan right and if

1:14

we can just prove they think the whole film is based on this premise that was

1:18

just like an inciting

1:19

incident for me to start digging into it first of all fabian kent said they

1:22

were predominantly vegetarian

1:24

and i said they ate mostly plants and that is what i couldn't believe right so

1:28

they didn't claim that

1:29

they were vegan didn't even claim that they were vegetarian they were just

1:32

fueled mostly by plants

1:33

you know and people say oh you cherry picked one location it was the only known

1:36

gladiator burial site

1:37

in the world based on archaeological and anthropological data at the time

1:41

at the time where you read the study because there have been other studies well

1:45

there's been there's

1:46

been some that have been questioned so like there's one in york and there's one

1:49

in york at the time

1:49

that had a few gladiator skeletons and it was questioned whether that was the

1:52

thing but i'm happy to

1:54

address every critique but if you wouldn't mind i just want to make sure that

1:57

chris ryan's same page

1:58

about how um evidence is evaluated sure so chris would you consider yourself a

2:03

nutrition expert

2:04

um no i would consider myself someone who is adept at reading the literature

2:12

and um learning from experts

2:16

in nutrition medicine anthropology etc although i do have master's level

2:21

training in nutrition

2:23

okay so is it fair to say that any one study cannot show what you know the

2:29

human race should be eating

2:31

is that fair any one study absolutely so basically anytime you show a study if

2:34

you say something you

2:35

have to give a citation for it right yeah fair to say and then someone can

2:39

claim that that's cherry

2:40

picked because that you've got to show a study or some studies and then someone

2:43

can claim it's

2:44

cherry picked right so what we have to do in order to understand nutrition is

2:47

look at the totality

2:48

of the evidence and i just want to make sure we're on the same page and then we

2:50

can address each

2:51

critique if that's okay is that okay that is the core of my argument right

2:54

exactly so you would

2:56

say is it fair to say like there's three main areas so there'd be like preclinical

2:59

data which

2:59

should either be in animals or in test tubes petri dishes right there'd be

3:03

observational data where you

3:05

look at people um and see how they're doing and obviously there's the health

3:09

user but uh healthy

3:10

user bias potential and there's interventional trials right so let's just take

3:13

trans fats for

3:14

example right you you look in a petri dish at uh endothelial cells and trans

3:19

fats and you can see

3:21

that it creates uh vascular inflammation in those cells right and then you look

3:25

at people who eat

3:26

trans fats and they have high levels of inflammation and then you can actually

3:29

do

3:29

interventional randomized control trials and you can tell that trans fats cause

3:33

inflammation

3:34

so we basically all agree that trans fats are bad based on all of those data

3:38

points is that fair

3:39

okay so therefore again if you start any one study people can just someone can

3:43

just claim that you're

3:44

cherry picking right you can just say cherry everyone can say that i could say

3:47

that you're

3:47

cherry picking you can say i'm cherry picking not necessarily because there are

3:51

meta analyses and

3:53

reviews that are built for this purpose to look at the totality of evidence

3:57

totally agree if you're

3:58

in the film for example pointing to many meta analyses that summarize all the

4:03

research that's been done

4:04

on a topic then i wouldn't have said that that's cherry picking fair enough i

4:08

agree with that okay so

4:10

basically in philosophy there's this um it's a logical fallacy called uh appeal

4:15

to authority right but in

4:17

the real world you know you have to look at experts that are specialists in

4:20

their field so if i you know i just

4:22

got shoulder surgery not long ago right so i went to a shoulder surgeon i didn't

4:25

go to a dentist if i want to

4:26

learned about comedy or you know fight announcing i might come and talk to you

4:30

right if i want to learn

4:31

about acupuncture or understand chemo i might come to chris because you've got

4:35

a master's degree in

4:37

traditional oriental medicine you're a licensed acupuncturist right so if i

4:40

want to learn about that

4:42

chris is someone that i might want to go to so what i'm saying is the world

4:45

health organization the fao

4:48

the american heart association the 2015-2020 dietary guidelines are all

4:54

suggesting to eat

4:55

predominantly plant-based diets right and they're saying that vegetarian vegan

4:59

diets are helpful for

5:00

all life stages including for pregnancy uh childbirth uh so through childbirth

5:05

uh breastfeeding

5:06

adolescents athletes and so on okay that's that that's the general consensus

5:10

can i just just finish

5:11

okay and so and i've got a bunch of slides if you don't believe anything i've

5:15

got a bunch of slides

5:16

showing the position papers for all of these uh that's okay go ahead so let's

5:19

skip through that so

5:20

that's you'd agree that those yes no i wouldn't necessarily agree okay so then

5:25

let's go to the

5:26

recommendation okay so can we go to slide one those recommendations change over

5:30

time no they do change

5:31

over time and then i would also say that i'm on a predominantly plant-based

5:34

diet well exactly so if

5:36

you look so then what are we arguing about if you look at two-thirds of my

5:39

plate is plants well this

5:40

is this is my point yeah you're being unfair that's really really unfair

5:44

because last time

5:45

you pointed out that the totality of coverage of the plate is not reflective of

5:49

the calories you

5:50

said that on yeah but that has nothing to do with what he's saying he's not

5:52

talking about calories he's

5:53

talking about what is predominantly his diet it's mostly plants you've got to

5:58

base it on calories

5:58

you can't base it on the the the why would we need to base it on calories if

6:02

you're saying that your diet

6:03

is predominantly plant-based then either one we're on the same page right

6:06

because that's what i'm

6:08

talking about no we're not because the the main question here in my mind is

6:12

whether there is

6:14

evidence that supports being on a 100 plant-based diet with no animal products

6:20

versus a diet that includes

6:23

a lot of plant foods and some animal foods i thought you were taking the film

6:26

which was talking about

6:27

plant-based diets so plant-based diets means getting the vast majority of your

6:31

calories from plants

6:32

and limiting or excluding animal foods but the the film essentially was all

6:37

about only eating plants no

6:40

okay so there was no recommendation whatsoever about eating animals how animal

6:44

products will kill you

6:45

dairy products will kill you all kinds of different animal foods no no that

6:50

claim was never made see

6:52

but there was a connection there was there was not there was an inferred

6:55

connection no there was not to

6:56

what was the connection the connection cigarettes was that the the way the playbook

7:00

that is being used

7:01

by the see that's people are conflating like what the hell playbook is the same

7:05

the same way they're using

7:07

athletes and they're using advertising we never made the claim which i explain

7:10

that then but be

7:11

clear okay so the playbook that was used by the the uh smoking industry so they

7:17

pay for studies right

7:18

right and and we know even with food right this has been done with cigarettes

7:22

it's been done with drugs it's been done with food research shows that industry-fronted.

7:25

studies of four to time four to eight times more likely to have a conclusion in

7:32

their favor for

7:33

their product so this is what the smoking industry did then they got doctors to

7:36

say that smoking wasn't

7:37

bad and then they got athletes to show like hey smoking is good that was the

7:41

parallel that we drew we never

7:43

drew the the parallel that was drawn in what the hell so i want to make that

7:45

really clear there was no and

7:47

and i've seen this in in articles saying you know they connected me we didn't

7:51

do that like if you watch the film we never said did you

7:54

why did you have that in there though if you're not saying because they're

7:57

using the same playbook if you're not saying that meat causes cancer you're

8:01

saying

8:01

they're using the same specific claims that chicken eating chicken and fish

8:06

causes cancer

8:07

eating dairy causes cancer there were quotes from doctors vegan doctors no they're

8:11

not vegan

8:12

that's the other misrepresentation so can i just go back can we just finish the

8:14

evaluating evidence

8:15

and then get to each point because i'm happy to have every critique so

8:18

basically the consensus and

8:20

you're saying they're changing over time they are changing because as we get

8:23

better at science

8:23

they're becoming more the recommendation is becoming more plant-based despite

8:26

industry influence from studies and marketing and people being paid off right

8:30

industry influence goes both ways the sugar industry in the 60s i agree

8:34

exposé pointing the finger at fat

8:37

as the culprit no i don't think that's the culprit so that that's a straw man

8:41

argument

8:41

no but he's not he's not saying you are saying that no no i'm saying the

8:44

industry is yeah i agree

8:45

the sugar industry is terrible and i would agree that but can i just can we

8:48

just finish the evaluating evidence

8:49

but the thing about this section of the film was you were making some sort of a

8:55

correlation

8:56

between cigarettes and the way that it was marketed the way they're marketed

9:00

and the way and then the way meat is marketed correct so it's the same paper it's

9:04

the same

9:04

company's exponent but why would you do you would never do that about like

9:07

carrots or kale or something

9:09

they're predominantly healthy because they didn't because they didn't do it but

9:12

if you're saying

9:13

that you you're connecting the two things you're connecting something that

9:18

clearly causes cancer

9:19

cigarettes and these studies that were made to show people that it didn't they

9:24

were paid off these

9:26

studies were fake they were they were essentially cherry-picked fake studies

9:29

that were financed by

9:30

the tobacco industry correct in order to get people to buy more cigarettes you're

9:34

making this same

9:35

sort of crime about meat correct which means you think that meat is bad i do

9:40

okay that's but that's

9:43

where we're that's where we're no we can disagree about that but i'm almost

9:46

finished with the

9:47

evaluating evidence so so basically what we did when we expert interviewed the

9:52

experts is we chose

9:53

leading experts in their individual fields with collectively with thousands of

9:57

articles in the

9:57

peer-reviewed literature right so and this is one of the bummers about the uh

10:01

making a documentary

10:02

it's like you put the lower third on people don't get to read it so we had the

10:05

chair of nutrition

10:06

at harvard the president american college of cardiology the lead delegate of urology

10:09

for the american

10:10

medical association the chair of anthropology at harvard the director of energy

10:14

environment and

10:15

resources at chatton chatton house really respected so you're talking about

10:19

vegan doctors i saw some of

10:20

them some of them involved in hunting some of them involved in animal testing

10:24

um i saw one of them

10:26

eating a chicken sandwich at lunch so let's not say that like this was a vegan

10:30

bias coming into it

10:31

because that's just not true these we're stretching out here we were talking

10:36

just about this one section

10:38

where you're connecting cigarettes and meat so you're saying that the same sort

10:42

of is used the

10:43

same playbook but there's no evidence that meat is bad for you no we can get

10:46

into that but this is

10:48

something that's actually recently been established by mainstream medicine you

10:51

understand that right

10:52

that they've released new studies releasing these new studies saying that there's

10:57

no longer this

10:58

concern that red meat causes cancer or that even this is also an appeal to an

11:03

authority because i can find

11:04

many illustrious doctors and experts who are highly qualified that will

11:08

disagree with your point of

11:09

view that it that a diet must be 100 plant-based in order to be healthy okay

11:14

okay jane can you clarify

11:17

your position okay i want to know what we're actually debating i do you do and

11:22

you but this was the

11:24

connection that you made with cigarettes in the film no yes no i think i think

11:28

they're both promoting

11:29

something bad because there's a profit so you think that meat is bad for you

11:32

you think that they're

11:33

promoting it knowing that it's bad just for profit okay so so all chris has to

11:38

do to debunk

11:38

the film right is convince the people watching and listening that he knows more

11:43

about the consensus and the

11:44

experts in their field like i would understand this is what i'm not interested

11:48

i'm not i'm

11:49

actually not that interested in consensus of experts i'm looking at that

11:53

research that is published the

11:54

peer-reviewed research that is published yeah including meta-analyses and even

11:59

reviews of

12:00

meta-analyses that have been done a perfect example is the whole dairy and

12:03

cancer section totally that

12:05

we talked about where you had argued or walter will it argued that there's you

12:09

know dairy products

12:10

cause cancer and i pointed to a meta-analyses that looked at over 150 different

12:15

reviews yeah that and

12:16

84 percent of those found no association so how is that not part of this

12:21

discussion where we're talking

12:24

about hundreds of scientists across different continents different countries

12:29

they're using peer-reviewed

12:31

science to show this but in the movie just one expert is pointing to you know

12:37

one group of studies

12:38

without mentioning that that sounds disingenuous that's a fair point right so

12:43

this is the 2018 meta-analyses have

12:44

you got a slide for that if not i've got your slide 107 slide 107. no this is a

12:50

2019 meta-analyses 153

12:53

studies right yeah and i can get a lot further into it because that's not the

12:58

only one i'd love to

12:59

because at nine o'clock last night until nine o'clock last night i thought chris

13:02

just made a bunch of

13:03

mistakes interpreting the data and i'm going to show you how he is misleading

13:08

people on this study okay so if you

13:11

can bring up the slide uh 107 jamie uh is there can we see the slide yeah yeah

13:16

put it up okay

13:17

is this it okay so you see what he's putting quotes okay 84 of meta-analyses on

13:28

dairy consumption showed

13:29

either no association or an inverse association between dairy and cancer and

13:34

then you go on to point

13:35

on what an inverse means is that people ate more dairy get lower rates of

13:38

cancer that's what he's

13:39

implying when you put something in quotes what does that mean to you it means

13:43

that's what he said yeah

13:46

but it's that that quotation is quoting the study right fair enough is that

13:50

what they said in the

13:52

study no that's not what they said in the study that's right my uh summary of

13:57

the evidence of the

13:59

study right thank you but when you put something in quote that's misleading but

14:02

that's his quote okay

14:03

fine okay let's go with that but he's not putting things in quotes saying that

14:07

someone else said it

14:08

totally i mean that's how when you when you when you anything you do in

14:11

literature when you put

14:12

something in quotation marks you're quoting the study but let's just let's just

14:15

bypass that i'll agree

14:16

okay so can you bring up side 109 see what they actually said

14:23

okay this is the actual quote okay out of 153 reported meta analyses comparing

14:28

highest versus lower

14:29

dairy consumption 109 71 showed no evidence of a statistically significant

14:34

association between

14:35

dairy consumption and instance of cancers 20 showed a decreased risk of cancers

14:40

with dairy consumption

14:41

and 24 showed an increased risk of cancers with dairy consumption now this is

14:46

actually until last

14:47

night like nine o'clock i realized what he was doing okay if you want to go to

14:53

i mean just to sum it up

14:54

if you go to slide 110 wait uh can we stay on here for a second what's your

14:57

what's your interpretation

14:59

do you agree that that was the quote from the study absolutely okay good but i'm

15:04

asking you what your

15:05

interpretation does that in your mind show a strong connection between dairy

15:10

and cancer okay joe you're

15:11

going to really realize here what chris is doing okay this is really and i'm

15:14

glad that you brought it up

15:16

please answer what you're saying okay so can i just say the reason you brought

15:20

this up is because walter

15:20

well it said there was a strong connection between prostate cancer and dairy

15:23

correct yeah so you brought

15:24

it about something about all cancers okay yeah so and in this study about half

15:29

of the study showed

15:31

a connection between prostate cancer and dairy and half didn't right that's

15:34

still not a compelling

15:36

argument that dairy is associated with cancer okay so can we got you you got a

15:41

coin flip basically

15:43

right that's not actually true i'll explain i'll explain why that's not true

15:46

answer my question

15:47

i will i'm trying to tell you i'm trying to tell you here slide 110 well let's

15:51

let's stay with this

15:52

explain this first and then we'll move to the next slide slide next 110 is

15:55

explaining this okay it's just

15:56

breaking that down okay so there was statistically significant associations

16:00

between dairy consumption and

16:01

intensive cancers 71 showed no evidence 13 showed a decreased risk and 16

16:07

showed an increased risk so you

16:08

see what chris did to represent this he added 71 and 13 to make 84 right you

16:14

follow this is how you got it

16:16

right so you added 73 71 and 13 to get 84 right so his statement from this

16:22

study was 84 showed no evidence

16:26

or a decreased risk that's what he made you believe well 71 shows no evidence

16:30

13 shows decrease right so if you

16:33

add the two of them together that's 84 shows no evidence or a decreased risk

16:38

exactly but what he

16:39

could have said is 71 plus 16 that's 87 he could have said 87 show no evidence

16:47

or an increased risk it's

16:49

you were claiming in the film was claiming dairy causes cancer my claim was

17:05

there's no the bulk of the

17:08

evidence suggests there is no association or inverse association that's true 70

17:15

shows no i agree i agree 13

17:17

percent shows decreased risk okay so that but hold on a second yeah the

17:21

decreased risk and the increased

17:23

risk are almost the same right which is what he talked about which is which is

17:26

higher three percent

17:27

shows increased risk on this one i'm not the point of this study is that this

17:32

is his study that he

17:32

brought up showing this is very strong evidence okay his statement was very

17:36

misleading he added up those

17:38

two and then he finished it up by saying so basically there's an inverse

17:42

correlation but he did not show he

17:45

could have said 87 showed no risk or an increased risk instead he chose to

17:49

summarize it saying 84 but

17:51

there's no risk increase risk it's a very different thing joe because you're

17:56

talking about something

17:57

causing cancer no exactly and so he couldn't there wasn't strong enough things

18:00

to find that total cancer

18:01

was increased right but we just we know that as research shows this included

18:07

did it not industry funded

18:08

research um two-thirds of research is industry funded and we know that yeah and

18:14

research shows that are

18:14

you are you proposing that we throw out every study because the one of the main

18:18

studies in your film was

18:20

sponsored by the hoss avocado board the one that claims that animal products

18:25

contribute to inflammation

18:26

i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm throwing out i'm saying that industry funded

18:29

studies and by the way

18:31

industry funded studies they typically only put them out when it shows in their

18:35

favor there's no

18:36

obligation for industry when they do a study to release it yeah i'm familiar

18:41

with that okay i've

18:42

written a lot about that so joe what do you think that the industry and the

18:45

meat and dairy has far more

18:47

money than the plant-based industry right you'd agree with that actually we we

18:52

can look at some

18:53

statistics on that okay but but joe i don't know okay would you would you

18:58

disagree that industry

19:00

funded research has a four to eight times increased um risk compared to non-industry

19:05

funded research in

19:06

finding collusions in their favor i think in just i think industry research is

19:10

definitely a problem but i

19:12

see it as a problem across the board and i have some statistics and so do you

19:15

not do you not admit that

19:17

you here led the audience to believe that there was a potentially decreased

19:22

risk overall you made it

19:23

sound very high because you didn't split between the no difference that was not

19:26

my intention it was

19:27

just it was to summarize the data because not to spend 10 minutes as we're

19:32

doing now talking about

19:33

one study when there's a huge because you made a very misleading claim but no

19:37

it's not misleading if

19:38

you said it the other way completely accurate if you said showed no evidence or

19:41

showed an increased

19:42

risk 84 percent that 87 that seems like it's misleading i don't think that

19:47

would be misleading

19:47

also do you want to look i'm just saying he could have said that but we're

19:51

talking about something

19:52

causing cancer james exactly so he shouldn't be making increased risk is what

19:55

we're looking for

19:56

what we're looking for is evidence of it causing cancer 71 the bulk of the

20:01

evidence shows no evidence

20:02

that's exactly what i've my point if you're claiming if you're claiming that

20:06

something increases

20:08

then i'm saying here's all this research that doesn't show that you honestly

20:13

don't think that

20:14

that statement instead of just putting the uh 71 showed no evidence 13 showed

20:18

that would be the

20:19

fairest the most um you know honest explanation like summary of that statement

20:23

i would say that

20:24

if you wanted to say it the most accurately yes that's the best way to say it

20:28

71 showed no evidence

20:29

13 showed decreased risk but i don't have a problem with saying 84 showed no

20:35

evidence or a

20:36

decreased risk it's true because we're talking about something causing cancer

20:40

that's the relevant

20:41

point that's the relevant point the relevant point is does the study show that

20:45

dairy causes cancer

20:46

the the primary evidence the most of the evidence says it shows no evidence or

20:50

it shows a decreased

20:51

risk that's the bulk of it that's 84 percent versus 87 it doesn't no no no 87

20:57

shows increased risk is

20:58

only 16 percent no evidence to increased risk to get 87 okay that's illogical

21:05

okay then let's throw out

21:06

the no no evidence let's throw that out let's throw out no evidence why would

21:09

we throw that out the

21:10

burden of proof is to show evidence that indicates that dairy causes cancer if

21:17

you do a study and it shows

21:18

that it doesn't then that's not in support of the claim i agree with them i

21:22

agree i'm agreeing that the

21:24

meta analysis did not could not find an association but i'm also pointing out

21:27

that industry funded

21:29

studies were included in it and they are more likely to find no connection okay

21:33

so there's 153

21:35

studies you're claiming we should just that all of them are industry funded and

21:39

we should throw out this

21:41

huge review of 153 meta analyses because of industry funding what is the basis

21:46

for that claim

21:48

no i'm not i'm saying that it sways the results can you you can't see that i

21:52

don't i don't i but you

21:55

know industry i don't accept that i have 153 studies you accept they were that

22:00

they were in this meta

22:01

analyses that they're going to sway the results to the point where these

22:06

findings aren't valid and we

22:08

could do the same thing with this all of the studies that you have linked to in

22:12

the film and we can also

22:14

look at other studies on dairy and cardiometabolic outcomes that we have i've

22:19

got lots of large

22:20

reviews that we can look at and again anyone can bring up you know this is a

22:23

pointless discussion

22:24

to have if you're just going to sit there and say industry funding that's not

22:28

my only point that's

22:30

that's not my only point i think you're saying it makes them suspect correct

22:33

yes and it could have

22:34

swayed it in the other direction it has in the past how many how many i do

22:37

agree with you about the cigarette

22:38

thing how many of the 153 study meta analyses which each also had individual

22:43

studies in them

22:44

are are so so biased by industry funding that we can't count on the findings

22:50

well i would hope that

22:51

you would know more than i i mean basically why would you know this is a this

22:56

this we can't get very

22:58

far in this discussion if you're going to claim that we can't even talk about

23:02

studies in the peer-reviewed

23:04

literature because industry funding completely biases the findings no i'm not

23:08

saying that's the

23:09

case i'm saying just because they couldn't even though there were more showing

23:13

an increase than

23:14

showed a decrease risk right i am saying that it's possible that the the

23:18

industry fund that's a

23:19

misleading statement more showed increase than decrease that's correct no but

23:23

there's 71 showed no

23:26

no i agree with that at all i agree i agree so that's a wash but so no it's not

23:29

a wash it's not

23:30

even close to a wash no it's not a wash if you have a hypothesis this thing

23:35

causes cancer and then you

23:37

do a ton of studies and there's no association that's a that hypothesis is no

23:42

longer correct it's not a

23:43

wash that's actually that's actually not true based on epidemiology if you have

23:47

10 studies that show no

23:48

association and 10 that show an association then you don't have that you don't

23:52

have that at all

23:53

here but i'm not again i'm not arguing what he said you have 84 that showed

23:58

nothing or a decrease

23:59

risk which is the opposite you could say 84 showed no evidence and then and

24:04

forget about decreased risk

24:06

just say 84 showed no evidence forget about decreased risk right you still have

24:10

only 16 showed an

24:12

increased risk right when you do an epidemiology study you have to take into

24:16

account all the other

24:16

factors in this person's lives totally you have to take into account whether

24:19

they whether they drink

24:20

whether they smoke totally whether they exercise totally you know sedentary

24:24

lifestyle there's a lot

24:25

of factors so that would if you had something that was causing cancer you would

24:29

expect the results to

24:31

be flipped you would expect the results to be 16 showed no so showed no

24:37

evidence 71 or 84 showed an

24:40

increase that would be something you'd say hey this is causing cancer this is

24:44

more likely that that's not how

24:46

epidemiology works though if you if you had well epidemiology is slippery

24:49

anyway i agree wait how

24:50

is that not how epidemiology works if you've got if you have even if you had 10

24:54

studies showing no

24:55

evidence just because you don't find something doesn't mean that it exists okay

24:58

the absence of

24:59

evidence is not the evidence of absence okay but let's say let's say this if

25:02

you if you had 100 studies

25:04

and 70 of those studies showed an increased risk of cancer wouldn't you say

25:07

that thing causes cancer most

25:09

likely most well if it was all epidemiology then it's okay okay so now let's do

25:13

100 studies and 70

25:15

now show no evidence yeah when you say it's most likely that there's no

25:19

evidence no that's not how

25:21

it works oh oh how does it how does it work so if you've got 70 studies that

25:24

couldn't couldn't show

25:26

a correlation and 30 that did that is still in favor of showing that there is a

25:30

correlation

25:32

well no no no show we're not now we're doing 70 studies if 70 70 of the people

25:38

in these studies

25:39

if you have all these studies you have 100 studies and 70 of the people in all

25:42

these studies are

25:43

showing an increased risk of cancer we would we would agree right this is why

25:46

you can't prove causation

25:47

based on observational but you would agree there's most likely a connection

25:51

right now if it's reversed

25:52

now if 70 of these studies show there's no increased risk of cancer or 84 or 84

25:59

which is

26:00

because you add in the decreased risk we're not even adding the decreased risk

26:03

which shows that

26:04

you're less likely to get cancer which is almost the same as an increased risk

26:08

of cancer which in my

26:09

eyes is a wash you would assume that we're talking about something that doesn't

26:12

give you cancer

26:13

well that i mean that that's i agree that this study found that they couldn't

26:18

prove a causation

26:19

right they couldn't prove a link between cancer but you made it out like he was

26:22

being deceptive he is

26:23

being deceptive i don't agree with that i don't agree with that because you're

26:26

trying to you're you're

26:27

trying to show that these studies are proving or at least making this

26:32

correlation between consumption

26:34

of dairy products and cancer but the evidence doesn't show that if you want to

26:39

look at it in

26:39

its entirety the evidence shows that most of the 71 showed no evidence of it

26:45

causing cancer 13 showed

26:47

it's actually better for you you have less risk of cancer than not eating dairy

26:52

13 and 16 showed more

26:54

showed increased risk of cancer and again when you talk about epidemiology

26:58

studies when you're talking

26:59

about you know 16 out of 100 you you have to throw in all the other factors

27:05

that's why they didn't

27:06

find it but can i just the reason you point this up is prostate cancer right

27:10

and and so if you look at

27:12

slide uh 113 prostate cancer was that's disturbing so it's 50 50 with dairy

27:17

consumption versus uh wait that's not

27:20

one sorry 113 but a lot of people get prostate cancer too isn't that also an

27:25

issue that's a high

27:26

isn't that a high risk for males prostate cancer it's it's a high one whether

27:33

it's a 112 whether they

27:34

consume milk or not so just so in this metronautics that you point to the

27:39

highest connection that they

27:41

could find between dairy and any type of cancer was prostate cancer so if you

27:45

look at the black line

27:46

that shows no association if you look at the green line that's decreased

27:49

association and the red line

27:51

was increased association that was the metal analysis that you provided yeah so

27:55

you brought you

27:56

brought this study up because dr walter willett who is the chair of nutrition

28:00

at harvard he's one of the

28:01

most published nutrition scientists of all time if not the most published no

28:05

disagreement there right

28:06

and so he is coming to the determination that prostate cancer is linked and it's

28:10

likely that it's causal

28:12

and this very study whoa whoa whoa back up half and half that's not that's no

28:17

evidence of a causal

28:18

relationship james there's no evidence of a causal relationship okay dr walter

28:24

willett is in in just

28:25

let's talk about this study okay rather than appeal to authority you just said

28:29

yourself that's a rhetorical

28:31

fallacy no it's it's a it's a fallacy unless it's the appeal to valid authority

28:37

because literally if

28:38

i want to know about are you saying like so if i want let's say we look at

28:41

mixed martial arts and chris

28:42

goes well i've never done mixed martial arts but i think i know more about

28:47

anthropology nutrition like

28:48

i know more about boxing kickboxing jiu-jitsu and wrestling so we're talking

28:53

about the consensus we're

28:54

talking about leading experts in their field with thousands of peer-reviewed

28:57

well there is no consensus

28:58

there are experts who are very illustrious who would disagree and would uh look

29:04

at this study and reach

29:06

the same exact conclusion that i did same which is there's no reliable no there's

29:10

no reliable proven

29:12

connection between dairy and prostate you have half studies showing an

29:16

association half studies showing

29:19

no association not to mention the fact that that's as you just said that even

29:24

if there was

29:25

a strong correlation that doesn't prove causation well this was you said you

29:29

like this because it

29:30

included also randomized controlled trials yeah and i'm saying should we should

29:34

we trust walter willett

29:36

who at the time was the chair of nutrition harvest trust the studies no no

29:38

studies is what we need to

29:40

look at but we're way off here because the question was still you know the inf

29:47

there are a lot of

29:47

inferences made in the film whether they were intentional or not on your part

29:53

that you know

29:54

dairy people are hearing oh dairy is going to cause prostate cancer they're

29:58

going to extend that to

29:59

cancer there are other claims in the film made about dairy and metabolic pro uh

30:03

issues and saturated fat

30:05

and metabolic issues so the operative question that i'm trying to answer is do

30:11

the data support that not

30:12

does walter willett think that or any other expert in the film do the data

30:17

support that conclusion right

30:18

and even in that study it the data don't strongly support that if you have half

30:24

studies saying yes

30:25

half studies saying no that's not a clear signal and it's definitely not

30:29

evidence of a causal relationship

30:30

so so having walter willett or anyone say there's a strong relationship and we

30:36

know the mechanism and

30:37

there's you know it's causal that can i pause here by the study didn't you tell

30:43

me that two-thirds of

30:44

people um have an intolerance towards towards milk and towards dairy and i have

30:51

a study here is that

30:52

what the number is it's one two out of three people in the world okay so can i

30:57

because this is actually

30:59

to your point sure so two out of three people have an intolerance towards dairy

31:03

in the world and if you're

31:05

talking about a study that shows fifty percent of the people in these studies

31:10

that are consuming dairy

31:11

there's a correlation between prostate cancer and and dairy wouldn't you assume

31:17

that maybe what the

31:19

same thing that we're talking about with two-thirds of people are intolerant to

31:22

something they consume

31:23

this thing that's intolerant causes inflammation in the body and that

31:26

inflammation the body could

31:28

possibly be leading to cancer correct no not correct dairy dairy is inversely

31:34

associated with

31:35

inflammation so uh we can pull up okay inversely associated with inflammation

31:40

but if people

31:41

are irritated by dairy if they have an intolerance to dairy and you said two-thirds

31:46

of people here's

31:47

here's what i would suspect there that if you we segmented those people out and

31:52

said let's do a study

31:53

find out who's intolerant of dairy and find out who isn't you would see even

31:57

better results for dairy

31:59

because despite the fact that some people are lactose intolerant we're still

32:03

seeing in that

32:04

meta-analyses that you know most people there's no association in most cases

32:09

and an inverse association

32:10

in other cases so hold on a second but this prostate cancer thing is not most

32:17

this is 50 50 right i know

32:19

and but why 50 50 is disturbing so imagine what you're saying you're saying if

32:22

half of the okay

32:23

well if dairy gives half people cancer right and doesn't give the other cancer

32:26

then i can just

32:26

drink dairy second of all do you see what chris just did that's not what that

32:30

said but you see what

32:30

these are epidemiology james it's not dairy gives anyone cancer it's

32:34

association no that's

32:36

not your meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials but this is

32:39

actually to you

32:40

can i stop this though wouldn't if someone's intolerant of something that means

32:45

your body

32:45

is irritated by it means it causes some sort of disturbance right whether it's

32:50

inflammation

32:51

or gastrointestinal disorder you start farting and that's what happens when

32:55

people are lactose

32:56

intolerant right that irritates the body wouldn't there be wouldn't you assume

33:01

that something your

33:01

body is intolerant to would possibly be the cause of disruption or disease

33:07

certainly could be right so

33:08

now if but if you're looking at two-thirds of the population are intolerant but

33:15

why would that cause

33:16

prostate cancer and no other cancers i don't know that doesn't make sense that's

33:20

why that's why

33:22

when you see that kind of thing in the data it's a red flag because there's no

33:28

logical explanation

33:29

for why it would cause prostate cancer but no other cancers why is there more

33:35

of an association there with

33:36

with that jamie pull up but just google dairy products and inflammation review

33:41

of the clinical evidence

33:42

this is a review systematic review of 52 clinical trials and they found that

33:47

dairy products were

33:48

inversely associated with inflammatory markers which means that people who

33:52

consume dairy actually had lower

33:54

levels of inflammatory markers so the hypothesis that dairy is inflammatory and

33:59

that's why it's causing

34:00

cancer doesn't seem to hold up in the literature so so can i just say so first

34:04

of all you know there's

34:05

there's might be studies he can bring up i'm not even a nutrition scientist i'm

34:09

like a combatives

34:10

trainer right and so you also said that you're not an expert in nutrition and

34:14

so what what we have to

34:15

believe today is that chris really is it is about the meta-analyses but it's

34:19

about the meta-analyses

34:20

it's about the totality of taking into account all the evidence not just one

34:23

meta-analysis or a meta-analysis of a meta-analyses but all of the data

34:27

and so what you're asking people to believe is that you are better at

34:31

interpreting the data

34:32

than people that are experts in their field there are many experts who would

34:37

agree with

34:38

me no no you just didn't choose to interview them in the film no actually we

34:41

did interview

34:42

something i can tell you about in a second on the other side and i'll tell you

34:44

why we didn't include

34:45

them but you are asking people i would understand it if suddenly chris has

34:48

figured out this

34:50

neutral diet that he figures out something about nutrition that he's better

34:53

than the consent he knows

34:54

more about the consensus and more about the majority of leading experts but to

34:58

believe that chris knows

34:59

more about anthropology urology heart disease new uh why include anthropology

35:05

yeah because is that what

35:06

you try you try to do with anthropology in the film and successfully because

35:10

the majority of anthropologists

35:12

agree with what i said you chose the probably one of the few that would agree

35:17

with the idea that humans

35:19

primarily ate a plant you know exclusively plant-based diet for performance of

35:24

human evolution we can go

35:25

into that again i'm actually representing the consensus viewpoint in

35:29

anthropology james no you're

35:31

actually not you'll be hard pressed there's not to find a a consensus group of

35:36

experts that agree with

35:37

that idea so you're saying that the chat you're saying that richard rang and

35:40

the chair of anthropology that

35:41

we interviewed does not represent the scientific consensus of anthropology if

35:45

you're arguing that

35:47

he uh is is saying that humans primarily ate plant-based diet for and didn't

35:52

and animal products were

35:53

not a significant part of our diet through evolution then yes that's what i'm

35:57

saying it depends so we came

35:59

from the equator right but i want to go back a second because you don't want to

36:03

answer your question are you arguing that

36:07

there's a dominant consensus among nutrition experts in the u.s that everyone

36:12

should be on a vegan diet

36:14

no so what's the what's the argument here that we should people should eat

36:20

plants and my argument is

36:23

yes they should and and animal products can also be part of that nutrivore

36:27

healthy omnivorous diet and i

36:30

think you would find a dominant consensus of nutrition experts that agree with

36:35

that so it should

36:35

be but that that's not the way this film is being interpreted there was a bias

36:40

going into it so for

36:42

example when you go to the u.s military right the game changers is the first

36:46

documentary that has ever

36:47

been accredited by the defense health agency for the department of defense it's

36:51

the first documentary

36:52

that has ever been supported by the special operations medical association they

36:56

didn't come into it

36:57

looking at the science this has been evaluated by hundreds of phd researchers

37:01

to come to that

37:02

conclusion okay they did not come into it how so they've been evaluated how so

37:06

you can't get an

37:08

accreditation your film is evaluated by the department the defense health

37:12

agency of the department of

37:13

defense which decides what the military is eating they don't give a crap about

37:18

oh let's let's base our

37:19

diets on ever on evolution they care on what is the science and the game

37:23

changes is the first documentary

37:25

that's ever been accredited by the defense health agency they didn't look at

37:28

this and go okay um this

37:30

is a vegan propaganda film why are you saying that hundreds of phds have

37:34

reviewed this and reviewed

37:36

all the data in it to come to this conclusion and is this proven is this

37:40

printed is this some published

37:42

paper where it shows that hundreds of people have reviewed this film and found

37:46

all the claims to be

37:48

credible and that all the debunkings of it are not the defense health agency

37:51

has reviewed this film

37:53

in detail digging into each of the studies right but you're saying you again

37:57

called to authority you're

37:58

saying hundreds of phds have have studied this who are these people well there's

38:02

there's a lot from

38:03

the defense health agency there's a lot of people that are special operations

38:06

and medicalization that

38:07

came to the decision and these are masters degrees in nutrition phds in

38:11

nutrition to get that

38:13

accreditation that just hasn't happened before because they didn't come into it

38:17

thinking this is a vegan

38:18

propaganda film that was the bias going into it we're again talking a lot about

38:24

experts and and their

38:25

opinions right experts experts in their opinions and not chris kresser in his

38:29

opinion it's not that

38:30

that's a nice representation james no this is not about my opinion and i we can

38:36

fill the room with experts

38:37

who agree with me you had an expert a debate with a doctor in the uk on a tv

38:43

show who disagreed with you we can

38:46

always find we can always find people who agree and disagree uh with all kinds

38:52

of different credentials

38:53

it's disingenuous to claim like i said that i i'm not here to argue that plants

38:59

are unhealthy and that

39:01

we shouldn't be eating a lot of plants this is the fallacy that gets created

39:04

with these kinds of films

39:07

it's not a choice between a standard american crappy processed food diet that

39:11

contains meat or a vegan

39:13

diet right it's there is a possibility of a plant-based diet a diet that has a

39:19

lot of plants that also

39:21

contains animal products and that compares comparing that with a hundred

39:26

percent plant-based diet that is

39:29

the operative question the film the film is i believe that meat and dairy are

39:33

bad for you the film

39:34

talked about plant-based diet why do you believe that i think there's

39:37

sufficient evidence yeah well

39:38

let's talk about that because if you look at our website and telling you know

39:44

people want to know

39:45

resources on what to eat they say we say it's all or something it doesn't have

39:49

to be all or nothing

39:50

so we were talking about okay but that's nice but what you just said you think

39:54

that meat is bad for

39:55

you yeah please and dairy and you know well i could see the i could see the

39:59

argument if we're talking about

40:01

two-thirds of people being lactose intolerant i would see the argument that for

40:05

two-thirds of

40:06

people dairy is probably not good for you the research doesn't it doesn't

40:09

support that but if

40:11

but i mean we're saying i can what is lactose intolerant if you're intolerant

40:14

of something that

40:15

means your body's not enjoying it and that's not the only issue by the way that's

40:17

not the only issue

40:18

with milk let's just concentrate on that because that's a giant number two-thirds

40:22

of people are lactose

40:24

intolerant if you would if you set your body's intolerant of something but you

40:28

keep consuming that

40:28

thing that your body's intolerant of i would naturally assume as a absolute

40:33

admitted non-expert

40:34

that that's not good so two things here number one i've always for years have

40:38

written that dairy is

40:40

very individual and depends on your tolerance number two there are a lot of

40:43

dairy products with virtually

40:44

no lactose in them so cheese for example hard cheeses no lactose you know cream

40:51

no lack very little

40:52

lactose butter very no lactose ghee no lactose yogurt fermented dairy products

40:57

like kefir no lactose so

41:00

while i agree with what you're saying if someone is lactose intolerant they

41:05

should avoid dairy products

41:06

that contain lactose when you look at the studies on dairy and connections with

41:11

conditions like cancer

41:13

inflammation which i just pointed out with this study and you look at cardio

41:17

metabolic outcomes which i'd like

41:19

to cover because that includes heart disease and diabetes and overweight

41:24

obesity etc there is not

41:26

any strong evidence that dairy contributes to those conditions so let's let's

41:30

look at those actual studies

41:32

chris what you you talk really badly against epidemiology saying it can't prove

41:36

causation and

41:36

then when you like it you cite it so you'll give epidemiological evidence the

41:40

same way with you james i

41:42

i mean you can't have it both ways exactly you can't have it both ways i'm

41:45

saying that's right oh so

41:46

you can if the burden of proof if you're claiming that something is bad for you

41:51

yeah the burden of

41:52

proof is on you sure meaning so you can't say it's bad for you and then i show

41:57

epidemiological studies

41:59

and rcts by the way that were included in that meta-analyses that don't support

42:03

that and then you

42:04

say oh we can't trust the research no i'm saying your hypocrisy is saying that

42:09

you say that you said

42:10

the epidemiology that's observational studies just looking at people you have

42:13

said that we can't rely

42:15

on those and then you then cite them yourself i didn't say we can't rely on

42:20

epidemiology i say you

42:22

have to consider the caveats it with epidemiology but again the burden of proof

42:26

if you're claiming that a

42:28

food is bad for you the burden of proof is on you to show research that it is

42:33

for example i'll give you

42:36

a couple of reasons about me please so for example first of all there's an

42:39

inflammatory mediators for

42:41

example like heme iron second of all we look at population data and we show uh

42:45

increased causes of

42:47

morbidity and mortality for people that eat less meat or that eat no meat so

42:52

there's there's increased

42:54

causes of morbidity you just said it the wrong way yeah so it decreases

42:57

decreased risk of more uh

42:59

morbidity and mortality let's just be real clear on that because you said it

43:02

wrong and then so that

43:03

everybody for example let's look at two randomized controlled trials see these

43:08

are not observational

43:09

studies um the the first found that increasing red meat consumption by

43:14

replacing carbohydrates in

43:16

the diet of individuals without anemia actually reduced markers of inflammation

43:20

sorry reduce replacing

43:22

what sorry carbohydrates yeah that's what you said sorry so jamie if you want

43:27

to pull this uh i mean

43:29

these are all on the website cressor dot co slash game changers but that's that

43:34

study is called increased

43:36

lean red meat intake does not elevate markers of oxidative stress and

43:40

inflammation in humans

43:41

i believe the study exists i mean that doesn't so these are rcts randomized so

43:48

so they're actually

43:48

controlling it instead of just looking at observational data which is subject

43:52

to healthy user bias um these

43:55

are two rcts so that's uh that's one study and then there's another one another

44:01

rct uh in women with

44:03

anemia inflammation markers on a diet high in red meat or not significantly

44:07

different from those on a diet

44:09

high in oily fish and then there are also numerous studies of paleo diets which

44:15

contain meat and other types of

44:17

animal protein and show that they decrease markers of inflammation including crp

44:21

there's randomized controlled

44:23

trials showing reductions in interleukin 6 and also in tumor necrosis factor

44:28

alpha uh in these diets so

44:31

all of this suggests it's not the meat it's what you eat with the meat that

44:35

makes the difference so we have

44:37

studies of chlorophyll eating chlorophyll rich green vegetables uh decreases

44:42

the formation of n nitroso compounds with

44:45

meat we have lots of studies showing that when you eat plants along with the

44:50

meat then you don't see

44:52

the effects that you might see if you're just eating right a crap standard

44:57

american diet i agree so it

44:59

offsets like some uh so if an animal foods creates oxidative stress you have it

45:03

with the plant foods

45:04

and that would have the antioxidants and that would offset it is that basically

45:08

it's a little more

45:08

complicated than that yeah i think it is more complicated than that but as i've

45:12

always as i said

45:14

last time and as as i've always argued i'm not a proponent of the carnivore

45:19

diet i'm not a low carb

45:21

guy i'm not a keto guy i'm my fundamental argument is just that the optimal

45:27

human diet contains both plant

45:30

and animal foods and this focus on individual food components or macronutrients

45:36

like protein or fat

45:37

or carbohydrate we've gotten too much it's called nutritionism it's just

45:43

focusing on these individual

45:45

elements and ignoring the overall pattern of diet quality which is the most

45:48

important thing and that's

45:50

what a lot of the more recent studies are showing when you look at the diet

45:54

pattern and diet quality on

45:56

it's on you know overall that's what actually makes a difference in terms of

46:01

health and lifespan not

46:03

how much of this fat how much of that fat whether there's you know red meat or

46:07

white meat or fish or

46:09

whatever it's the pattern let me pause here because this is this is one of the

46:13

primary misconceptions that

46:14

people have about consuming meat when they hear studies that say that meat is

46:18

associated with mortality

46:20

or high cholesterol or heart disease or all these different factors we are

46:24

talking about these

46:25

kinds of studies where people fill out a form tell us what you eat yeah how

46:29

many days a week do you eat

46:31

meat how many days a week do you eat this what they don't take into account is

46:35

whether or not these

46:36

people are going to wendy's and whether or not they're eating a grass-fed steak

46:41

and and and you know

46:42

and broccoli something healthy there's a giant difference between those two

46:46

things but they're lumped in

46:47

together because this is meat consumption yeah there's the studies aren't

46:51

perfect for sure

46:52

um but you were saying that basically you're looking saying we should look at

46:54

outcomes and not just look

46:55

at individual markers right is that basically no i'm saying we should look at

46:59

the diet quality the overall

47:02

diet pattern so for example christopher gardner did the study at stanford a

47:08

couple years ago and he

47:12

took two instead of saying you know low fat low carb he took two groups and he

47:16

advised them all to basically

47:18

eat a healthy diet and then one group ate a low fat healthy diet and the other

47:21

group ate a low carb

47:23

healthy diet they all lost weight but there wasn't that big of a difference

47:26

between the two i agree i agree

47:28

so first of all in terms of health i would be pretty my my opinion would be i'm

47:32

pretty much um

47:33

macronutrient agnostic so i wouldn't like i'm not advocating high carb or low

47:38

carb i think that people can do

47:39

healthy and well i think for athletes they need a lot more carbs which of

47:42

course getting those from

47:43

plants i think there's certain athletes that can uh if it's slow and steady

47:46

state where you're getting

47:48

more fat oxidation um i think that you know stone steady state athletes can do

47:52

but like an mma fighter

47:54

a soccer player a basketball player agreed we all agree on that okay but you

47:57

just said that you were

47:59

you were not low carb right you said you're not low carb i'm not i'm not a low

48:03

carb advocate i've written

48:04

articles called seven things seven reasons you should be cautious i'm not

48:09

saying i'm not low a low carb

48:11

advocate i don't believe everyone should be on a low carb diet right i've never

48:15

believed that

48:17

but the thing is chris has his own he doesn't have the consensus um definitions

48:21

of carbohydrate

48:22

levels you've made up your own definitions right when did i make up my own

48:25

slide uh 80

48:27

jamie if you could do that please let's just point out that zach bitter the man

48:32

who i had on the

48:33

podcast yesterday who holds the world record in running 100 miles in 11 hours

48:39

and i think it's 18

48:40

minutes uh he's on a low carbohydrate diet yeah and again you get those slow

48:44

and steady state you can

48:46

certainly do well um so so chris your recommendation your definition of low

48:52

carb is 10 to 15 percent uh if you

48:54

can go to the next slide jamie 81 so if you look at the peer-reviewed

48:57

literature it's either less than

48:59

30 percent or the next slide jamie less than 40 percent like if you look across

49:03

all the literatures

49:04

less than 30 or 40 moderate carb according to chris uh next slide jamie would

49:09

be 15 to 30 uh peer-reviewed

49:11

literature next car next slide 40 to 65 and then high carb chris calls more

49:17

than 30 and the peer-reviewed

49:19

literature high carb more than 65 uh and the next slide more than 70 depending

49:23

on the peer-reviewed

49:25

literature so you've come up with your own definitions of what is low moderate

49:28

and high carb yeah just for

49:30

the purpose you just said no it's for the purpose of my work with people that

49:34

that's not relate i wasn't

49:35

trying to represent research there that's just joe that's what i consider to be

49:40

low carb moderate carb and

49:42

high carb in my work with patients okay my recommendation did you not just hear

49:46

him say

49:47

he did i mean that is what you said i mean you when you wrote this out you did

49:53

have a different

49:54

definition than the peer-reviewed literature you do by his definition have your

50:00

own idea and he said no

50:01

high car you heard him say that you heard him say no yes and so slide uh slide

50:05

88 please jamie so i just

50:07

want to sum this up um but what's the point here because the point is the point

50:11

i said that everyone

50:13

should be on a low carb diet no i agree and i i've always argued that it

50:18

depends on everything from

50:20

your genes to your exercise pattern where are you getting your numbers from

50:23

like when you write low carb

50:25

moderate carbon high carb he made them up this is just a rec this this is a

50:30

clinical recommendation

50:31

from my experience working with patients i'm not representing the scientific

50:35

literature here i'm

50:36

not trying to make arguments about we're talking about nutrition that's madness

50:40

that that's absolute

50:42

madness to come up with your own definitions and this is what i feel that chris

50:45

does okay and when you

50:46

have people like chris on multiple times it throws people's perception off as

50:50

what is a healthy diet

50:51

because chris misrepresents the data he comes up with his own definitions of

50:55

things he misrepresents

50:56

things that we said in the film okay why did i misrepresent in the film hold on

51:00

we're gonna get

51:01

we're gonna get into the woods we're gonna get into the woods here let's just

51:03

talk about this real

51:04

quick what so when we're talking about low carb moderate carb or high carb when

51:08

you're recommending

51:10

to your patients low carb moderate carb or high carb these definitions how are

51:16

you coming to these

51:16

conclusions just made them up no based on so there are a lot of people james

51:21

that disagree with the

51:23

the car the ranges scientific consensus in in yeah but when you say scientific

51:29

consensus how many

51:31

different scientists were were polled on this how many different studies were

51:36

shown i don't know

51:39

but hold on a second is this something that you just found that disputes his

51:43

position or is this

51:45

like a large group of no this is okay so slide 89 well consider verta health

51:50

who uses you know the

51:51

folks at verta who are all scientists mds they use a ketogenic very low carb

51:56

diet to no they choose

51:58

markers address diabetes no they actually don't hold on okay you you will not

52:02

be in ketosis at 30

52:04

carbohydrate or 25 percent or 20 percent or or even 15 percent you for for ketosis

52:11

seven percent yes

52:13

probably less than ten percent okay i agree i don't think so uh you know that

52:17

and and then you know

52:19

40 to 65 percent uh you're not you're no you're not even in the ballpark you

52:26

know so if you're thinking

52:27

about using low carbohydrate diets for example for weight loss or for diabetes

52:33

or you know metabolic

52:35

issues like verta health is doing then you low carb is not going to be 30 to 40

52:40

percent okay that's

52:41

not going to work so that's where my recommendation is based on ketosis based

52:47

on no based on the optimal

52:50

range if you have if you look at the rest of the article it's going to be like

52:53

if you've got diabetes

52:55

you've got you're overweight you're obese you're trying to lose weight this is

52:58

the range that i've

52:59

found and other experts like the people at verta health have found will be most

53:04

effective and these

53:05

are it's not it's not it's not i there's no representation that this is the

53:09

range that is

53:10

defined as low carb in the scientific literature so you're you're talking you're

53:13

calling it low carb

53:15

because if someone's on a ketogenic low carb diet in order to get into ketosis

53:19

you have to have

53:20

a low number of carbohydrates it's actually probably even below 10 and it's not

53:23

even not even just to

53:25

be in ketosis like just to get the the maximal weight loss you know someone

53:29

could be at 15 percent

53:30

and still get great weight loss without being in ketosis i've got to interrupt

53:34

because just like in

53:35

the last five minutes you showed a study from trying to prove your own point

53:39

that low carb and low fat

53:41

people had equivalent equivalent uh fat loss you just said that so why are you

53:47

now all of a sudden

53:48

advocating only low carb diets for uh i'm not advocating only low carb okay so

53:53

then i said that

53:54

that they can both work for different people in different situations but james

53:58

you're misrepresenting

53:59

what he was saying what he was saying is getting people to go on a healthy diet

54:03

versus the standard

54:04

american diet yeah so he's not just talking about low carb versus high carb

54:09

what he's talking about is

54:10

getting off like processed foods and sugar and eating i totally agree with that

54:14

and when you do that

54:15

people no matter what low carb or high carb lose weight but i think you will

54:19

agree as well as almost

54:20

anybody would that getting on a low carbohydrate diet and forcing your body

54:24

into ketosis makes your

54:25

body burn fat that's one way yeah that's true but it's it's proven right the

54:31

other piece of this

54:33

is most of the studies aren't comparing a healthy omnivorous diet with a you

54:41

know plant-based vegan

54:42

diet they're comparing a vegan diet with a standard american diet that contains

54:46

animal products

54:48

so you're talking about the paleo diet or his neutral diet yes which by the way

54:53

yeah has any of your work

54:54

or your ideas been published in the scientific literature no i've never claimed

54:58

that i just i just

54:58

wondered so you didn't wonder no i did wonder no i couldn't find anything but

55:03

that's not why you're

55:04

saying that you're saying that to try to make it seem that he's less of an

55:07

expert well he is i'm not

55:09

an expert either so what what's the point why are you here why am i here well i

55:14

actually i did ask if

55:16

i could bring my chief science advisor who has a double master's degree in

55:18

exercise physiology and

55:20

nutrition he's a registered dietitian he built all of his papers and we can

55:23

talk about them yeah totally

55:25

um but i think we should uh so first of all we just we still haven't come to

55:30

this understanding of

55:31

why you think meat is bad for you you were basing it well okay so so there's

55:35

the individual

55:36

components like heme iron for example all right we talked about that last time

55:41

the heme iron is only

55:42

associated with poor outcomes in the u.s it's not that's actually not true it's

55:47

not it's not true

55:48

in in other countries that's not true let's let them and then we can that's not

55:51

true you can refute it

55:52

in the fang meta-analysis which looks at most of the studies that have been

55:58

done on that and then if

55:59

you also consider that when you add green vegetables and other plant foods

56:05

spices

56:06

and all of that it reduces the oxidative capacity of heme iron and reduces the

56:12

absorption of heme iron

56:14

and you know again we're talking about diet pattern not just is red are you

56:19

eating red meat you know in

56:21

mcdonald's and fast food restaurants but if are you eating it in the context of

56:26

an overall healthy diet

56:27

and does that have the same effect right do you know how do you read a forest

56:30

plot

56:30

yes or no i don't what does that mean that's basically looking at this is just

56:39

the competent

56:40

intervals what's it called the forest forest plot plot okay yeah because it

56:43

kind of looks like a bunch

56:44

of trees right okay so you don't know how to read a forest plot so have you

56:47

actually looked at the

56:49

study i have looked at the study okay so i'll just we don't know how to read it

56:52

so it's kind of

56:53

so get a microphone on you james just pull that sucker over so you see that um

57:00

first of all he said that what he put up on the screen i don't know if you

57:04

still got the slide but

57:06

you said that um the he mine association was only in americans right but the

57:11

conclusion of that study

57:13

said that heme iron was associated with um cardiovascular disease that was a

57:18

conclusion

57:18

study which he didn't put up on the screen okay and then the quote i put up was

57:23

with respect to heme

57:25

iron intake we found a significant association only in the studies that were

57:29

based on american cohorts

57:30

right so there's two things about that was from the study okay first thing i i

57:35

can't link to my

57:36

slide i don't know where it is um but basically uh can you just read the

57:40

conclusion of that study

57:42

because i uh i i can't find my slide the conclusion this is down here

57:46

a higher dietary intake of heme iron is associated with an increased risk of

57:53

cardiovascular disease

57:55

whereas no association was found between c cardiovascular disease and non-heme

57:59

iron intake

58:00

or total iron intake okay so and then also and then i just read the the quote

58:06

just now which was

58:08

incorrect by the way the authors made a mistake so if you how do they make

58:12

mistake um so if you look at this forest plot for example this uh kipstein grobush

58:18

and you can go and

58:19

look at the i've looked at the individual studies that they were referencing in

58:22

the meta-analysis

58:23

as has my scientific team so basically you see this um this is a 1.86 with the

58:30

constant interval being 1.14

58:32

to 3.09 okay that is statistically significant connection between heme iron and

58:37

you can look at the

58:39

uh the conclusions but you're saying that what he said about eating it with

58:42

green leafy vegetables

58:43

no no no but we have to point out that he that i don't think this one i don't

58:47

think that's true

58:49

no first of all unlike the dairy one where i think that he was being a bit

58:52

misleading

58:52

in this case i don't think he was being misleading i think you i think that you

58:56

read there was no

58:57

misleading it was summarizing we already went over this yeah i don't think you

59:01

would like to create

59:05

that impression but no no that's my opinion that's just my opinion i think you're

59:08

being a bit misleading

59:09

in this case i do not think he was being misleading at all it did say what you

59:12

said in the study even

59:13

though you didn't point out the conclusion you left out the conclusion of the

59:16

study but what wasn't

59:19

your fault is i think you i think you read the study but you you admitted that

59:22

you can't you don't

59:23

know how to read forest plots and the forest plots if you did look at them and

59:26

you had to read them

59:27

you'd show that there were three uh in the netherlands and in sweden that did

59:31

show a significant

59:32

correlation because what you were trying to make out with this point which i

59:35

understand when you're

59:36

trying to when you have a point of view and you're trying to work it backwards

59:40

what you end up doing

59:41

is you try and find studies that suit your position and so you went and found

59:45

the study and you found a

59:46

quote even though you didn't like to put the conclusion of the study no i did

59:50

say that there

59:51

were but hold on i did acknowledge that there was an association but it was

59:54

based on american cohorts

59:56

yeah but it's not in there but it's not it's not your fault because the study

59:59

the people in the

1:00:00

whoever wrote the the write-up for the study made a mistake there were

1:00:03

statistically significant

1:00:05

because 1.14 to 3 means that there was like a 14 to 300 increase in that one

1:00:10

study of uh from the

1:00:12

netherlands the kirsten clips in crowbush and for people watching they can go

1:00:15

and look at the study

1:00:16

look at the conclusions yeah there were three because his point was what you

1:00:20

tried to infer from

1:00:21

that was that the american diet that includes a bunch of junk food is different

1:00:25

than the the ones in

1:00:26

sweden and netherlands where they aren't eating so much junk food but that

1:00:29

actually was incorrect so

1:00:30

heme iron has been associated and is recognized yes it has been associated and

1:00:36

we still have the studies

1:00:37

that eating fruits and vegetables attenuate the oxidative capacity from heme

1:00:41

iron

1:00:42

reduce absorption of iron in the gut and now we're focusing on a single

1:00:46

mechanism rather than looking

1:00:47

at the outcomes right which i again i'm happy to look at the outcomes do you

1:00:50

agree with what he just

1:00:51

said i do that heme iron i think that plant foods offset the oxidation offset

1:00:57

in some in some regard the

1:00:58

oxidation that you get from animal foods however if you work out you have oxidative

1:01:04

stress okay

1:01:05

so if you um want to have a meal do you want the plant foods in the meal to be

1:01:09

dealing with the

1:01:10

oxidative stress from the animal foods or do you want the plants to deal with

1:01:14

the oxidative stress

1:01:15

allow you to recover faster and your next workout will be better i don't think

1:01:18

we know that's

1:01:19

true no we do know that we don't know that that's how do we know that that's

1:01:22

true and that's not

1:01:22

very specific no no this is nutritionism because we're not focusing on the

1:01:28

nutrients in red

1:01:29

meat and the things that and the highly bioavailable protein it's not like red

1:01:32

meat is only there to

1:01:34

cause is is causing oxidative stress i agree it's not the only thing there are

1:01:38

some nutrients in me so

1:01:40

again the question is is there a place for animal foods in a diet that is

1:01:46

healthy overall not not

1:01:48

whether you know you should eat plant foods right we both agree that you should

1:01:53

probably eat a lot of

1:01:54

plant foods right which is my position i think it would be difficult for me to

1:01:58

argue a hundred percent

1:02:00

plants versus 50 plants i don't think it's argued to add like argue like 90 95

1:02:05

plants versus i think

1:02:06

the argument would take hours and hours and hours to convince you why i think

1:02:09

100 plants is better i

1:02:10

think there's definitely bio variability and i think different people have

1:02:14

different requirements

1:02:16

go back a second i want to make sure i understood what you just can you can you

1:02:18

repeat that so my

1:02:20

position is that the literature um i think it's an easier argument because we're

1:02:25

talking about plant-based

1:02:26

diets and plant-based diets would either limiting or or limiting or eliminating

1:02:31

animal products right

1:02:33

so for plant-based general diets in general right so vegan maybe some

1:02:37

vegetarian like if you eat turkey

1:02:39

on thanksgiving and then you eat fish once a month i would say that's a plant-based

1:02:42

diet you're

1:02:43

getting the vast majority of your calories from plants right and i think there's

1:02:46

a lot most people

1:02:48

even if you're eating pasta you're getting the vast majority of your calories

1:02:51

from plants

1:02:52

well yeah but if we're talking about what's a healthy the healthiest diet but

1:02:55

that's the

1:02:56

problem right i think whole plant foods a lot of shitty american diet is plant-based

1:03:00

you're talking

1:03:00

about buns and bread and yeah all the bullshit and peanut butter and jelly

1:03:04

sandwiches that's all

1:03:05

plant-based a lot of vegans and vegetarians just because you're vegan

1:03:08

vegetarian doesn't mean you're

1:03:09

healthy exactly right it's like the my argument is you're getting the vast

1:03:12

majority of your calories

1:03:14

from whole plant foods right okay agreed okay you agree well i don't think the

1:03:19

vast majority is my

1:03:20

position but i think that's his position right i agree what he's saying yeah i

1:03:25

think that i think that

1:03:25

look i i eat animal products i have for a long time and i eat a lot of

1:03:31

vegetables as well i think that

1:03:33

an omnivorous diet is is the key to health that's what i believe yeah i i

1:03:38

believe that meat helps

1:03:40

you recover faster i think it's more nutrient rich i think there's things in

1:03:44

meat that it's very

1:03:45

difficult to get in plants and i think the quality of the amino acids and the

1:03:49

quality of the protein

1:03:50

content is superior to that in plants i definitely should get into that let's

1:03:54

talk about that because

1:03:55

that's one of the things you brought up can i can i just say that i agree with

1:03:58

the type of meat that you

1:03:58

eat we know that like there's not studies done on the inflammation in elk but

1:04:03

there is

1:04:03

studies on inflammation in kangaroos for example in australia so totally wild

1:04:09

courts that's like

1:04:10

their equivalent of elk right and there is about half the inflammation coming

1:04:14

from that as there is

1:04:15

from beef well i would imagine i mean you're talking about a much healthier

1:04:19

much higher protein

1:04:20

the difference between the protein content in elk per ounce versus the protein

1:04:24

content in beef

1:04:25

is almost double it's a giant and we just had like less information controlled

1:04:29

trials i showed that

1:04:31

showed less inflammation with eating red meat no yeah but the thing is that's

1:04:35

it's tricky because

1:04:36

when is something healthy or something inflammatory it's always compared to

1:04:40

what

1:04:40

so in some of these studies what the industry does is they'll compare red meat

1:04:44

to bacon or

1:04:45

that or you know they'll switch it up there's always to watch it works the

1:04:49

other way around they

1:04:49

compare a plant-based diet with a standard crop western diet no i agree that's

1:04:54

that's not a

1:04:56

good comparison but i still don't see why you're saying meat is bad for you

1:05:01

well so he i mean we

1:05:02

just showed with the heme iron but the heme iron in conjunction with plant-based

1:05:06

foods right he's

1:05:07

showing and he said it's because of the quote that you gave is that one of the

1:05:12

primary reasons is

1:05:13

because of oxidation antioxidants deal with oxidation you get oxidant you get

1:05:17

pro-oxidation from animal

1:05:18

foods right you also get pro-oxidation from exercise now we're talking about

1:05:24

mechanism you know isolated

1:05:26

mechanisms right but you talk about but chris you talk about mechanisms when

1:05:30

you want to and you talk

1:05:31

about pre-clinical data when you want to i was talking about them in response

1:05:35

to the claims made

1:05:36

in the film because mechanisms were mentioned new 5gc tmao heme iron and so i

1:05:41

brought those up in you

1:05:43

know to respond to them no but that's not when you use them because if you go

1:05:46

on your website i'm not

1:05:47

saying we shouldn't ever talk about mechanisms james i'm saying if if you're

1:05:51

talking about mechanisms but

1:05:53

the outcomes don't support the mechanism then what's the point well i think we

1:05:59

can get into

1:06:00

epidemiology and look at that but i think we should definitely hit protein

1:06:03

because i think of

1:06:03

everyone watching like that's the biggest myth and it's the biggest sort of gripe

1:06:06

and then i think

1:06:07

we should definitely hit b12 so i want to make sure let's go with b12 because

1:06:10

one of the things that

1:06:11

you said that he disputed was did bring up that b12 quote that you said was

1:06:16

complete horseshit i can

1:06:17

read it out if you want go ahead please uh b12 is this and if you disagree with

1:06:21

what you were critiquing

1:06:23

b12 isn't made i'll read the whole thing and then so b12 isn't made by animals

1:06:27

it's made by

1:06:27

bacteria these animals consume in the soil and water just like uh with protein

1:06:31

animals are only the

1:06:32

middlemen before industrial farming farming farm animals and humans could get b12

1:06:37

by eating traces

1:06:38

of dirt on plant foods or by drinking water from rivers or streams but now

1:06:42

because pesticides

1:06:44

antibiotics and chlorine kill the bacteria that produce this vitamin even farm

1:06:47

animals have to be

1:06:48

given b12 supplements and you said that's just all false that's all just factually

1:06:53

wrong so first of all b12

1:06:56

is made by bacteria but it's um animals don't get it from consuming soil and

1:07:01

water first of all you

1:07:03

misrepresented what i said so i said it's made by bacteria that these animals

1:07:07

consume you went on to

1:07:09

say that animals didn't get bacteria from the soil that's not what i said i

1:07:15

said they get it from the

1:07:16

bacteria that they got from the soil so you misrepresented what i said you you

1:07:21

made out the key claims you made

1:07:23

james is that as pot it was pot used to be possible to get b12 by eating dirt

1:07:28

or on plant foods or from

1:07:29

drinking water from rivers or streams i've still have not seen convincing

1:07:33

evidence that that is true

1:07:35

slide 48 and jack norris a vegan dietitian has admitted as much in his article

1:07:41

and then even more

1:07:43

relevant than all of that is looking at b12 deficiency rates between vegans

1:07:48

vegetarians and omnivores

1:07:50

uh in the clinical literature like the the other stuff is not really relevant

1:07:56

until you get to the

1:07:58

clinical can we address each of your critiques then is that okay yeah um so

1:08:02

first of all

1:08:05

um you said there's zero evidence that b12 is fed to cattle right you said that

1:08:11

and so can i just

1:08:12

first you represent because i said even farm animals can you put up slide uh 44

1:08:15

please jamie

1:08:16

i said even farm animals have to be given b12 supplements okay that's what i

1:08:21

said okay um so did you

1:08:23

mean all farm animals okay so so do you see that that is a screen cap from the

1:08:27

film that's a chicken

1:08:29

and down at the bottom there's the quote for the poultry right so would you

1:08:34

disagree that like pigs

1:08:35

and chickens and no i don't disagree that they sometimes get b12 but do do what

1:08:42

about what about

1:08:42

shellfish shellfish are extremely high in b12 they're the highest even that's a

1:08:50

total non-sequitur

1:08:51

and it's not actually because the implication in the film was the only reason

1:08:56

you get b12 from eating

1:08:57

animal products is because they're given b12 supplements so yeah are you are

1:09:01

you in certainly

1:09:02

you're really suggesting that the like the population gets most of its b12 from

1:09:07

shellfish

1:09:07

no okay i'm saying that the claim that animals need to take b12 supplements in

1:09:13

order to have b12

1:09:15

in their flesh so you're not where do you think chickens get it from

1:09:18

james where do you think chickens about the shellfish was i never claimed

1:09:25

chicken was a great

1:09:26

source of b12 i said i said you i said in the film even farm animals have to be

1:09:31

given b12 supplements

1:09:32

you said that it was absolutely false everything that i said about b12 you said

1:09:36

was absolutely false

1:09:37

those are your words this is also you talking about that people used to be able

1:09:40

to get it from

1:09:41

consuming vegetables right bacteria on it and that the water is now because of

1:09:46

pesticides and chlorine

1:09:47

the water no longer has and then you claim that the same percentage of of you

1:09:52

you picked one study that

1:09:54

showed uh equal rates of deficiency and ignored the huge amount of literature

1:10:00

that shows big differences

1:10:02

between vegans vegetarians and omnivores in terms of b12 deficiency i know all

1:10:06

of your critiques because

1:10:07

i've noted them and i've got a point for each one so can i just go and then you

1:10:11

can if you disagree

1:10:12

you can so um could you just uh jamie could you put up slide 45 and i know and

1:10:18

rather than throwing off

1:10:19

track going to about humans we'll get to that in a second but that that i mean

1:10:23

b12 is just commonly

1:10:24

fed to chickens and you would agree with that right yeah and and pigs and lambs

1:10:28

that feel that can't

1:10:29

room and like ruminants can create b12 in their gut from the bacteria that they

1:10:33

yeah okay yeah so

1:10:35

but you brought up by valves and other yeah no certainly there's some yeah but

1:10:39

that's not yeah

1:10:40

totally okay so um but since you brought up cattle you said that cattle uh

1:10:45

there's no evidence of

1:10:46

cattle being fed b12 so if you bring up flight 46

1:10:48

vitamin b12 for sheep and cattle that's what it says you said there's no

1:10:58

evidence so you said there's no

1:11:00

evidence so on the left that just so because people might not be able to read

1:11:03

the small print well

1:11:04

listen there's people just listening as well okay sorry for people just

1:11:06

listening so b12 injection

1:11:08

for sheep and cattle there's three different products there's something that's

1:11:12

added to feed on

1:11:12

the left so it says a liquid complementary complementary feeding stuff

1:11:16

containing the essential trace

1:11:17

elements cobalt selenium and b12 of b12 deficiencies correct that's due to some

1:11:24

soils and it being low in

1:11:25

cobalt which is a lot of yeah okay so now if you just go to um slide 47 please

1:11:32

jamie

1:11:34

next slide okay this is the largest supplier of animal uh feed or supplements

1:11:40

in the world okay on

1:11:42

their website young ruminants require supplemental vitamin b12 prior to full

1:11:47

room and development

1:11:48

they also say vitamin two is sometimes administs uh parenterally to uh incoming

1:11:54

feedlot cattle

1:11:55

and also b12 by the way has been shown to increase milk production you said

1:12:00

there was no evidence that

1:12:02

cattle are given b12 and you said that all my statements were absolutely false

1:12:06

do you at least

1:12:07

admit that you were wrong there if i said that i've got your cattle that

1:12:13

specifically that one portion

1:12:15

of the statement you said there's no evidence so you said that i'll get ever

1:12:19

get b12 supplements then i

1:12:21

was wrong about that everybody says okay first of all when i made the full

1:12:24

statement this is what you first

1:12:25

said that's just all false that's all just factually wrong and then later on

1:12:30

you said there's also zero

1:12:33

evidence that b12 is fed to cattle that is flat out wrong and i have just shown

1:12:38

that is that fair i was

1:12:39

wrong okay so we'll get to another point because you were wrong about many

1:12:42

other things as well

1:12:44

okay so uh let's see so you agree that um you know it is fed to cattle so you

1:12:50

want to look at humans

1:12:51

um i'm trying to see if there's any other points that you brought up they've

1:12:55

been giving minerals

1:12:57

and feet and different things to right that's the thing what is the point the

1:13:02

point if cattle are

1:13:04

deficient because they're in a feedlot where they're not eating grass it's not

1:13:07

only that and that's the

1:13:09

primary reason it isn't only or because it becomes so young cows young cows

1:13:14

these are young cows that

1:13:15

are most likely right people have been getting i know meat b12 from animals do

1:13:22

you just do you

1:13:22

dispute that the primary source of b12 for human beings has been eating animals

1:13:29

and also fish and shellfish

1:13:33

in history and from rivers and dirt but both where is the evidence that that

1:13:40

rivers and streams and

1:13:41

dirt has been a primary source i'm going to i'm obviously going to give it to

1:13:44

you okay you think i

1:13:45

came here today you think i made claims in the film that i couldn't back up

1:13:49

perhaps because there are a

1:13:51

lot there are actually quite a few claims we did we we went over those in the

1:13:55

last show yeah so can we

1:13:58

stick with the b12 sure okay so um can we just go to slide 48

1:14:03

hold on a second please um so b12 concentration fluctuated between 100 so this

1:14:12

is in uh the

1:14:13

levels of water in the english lake district if you want to go to slide 49

1:14:17

uh the vegetables uh where the vegetables were eaten without being carefully

1:14:23

washed the strict

1:14:24

vegetarians who do not practice hand washing or vegetable cleaning may be untroubled

1:14:28

by vitamin b12

1:14:29

deficiency and by the way the the retained vitamin d12 for soil was adequate to

1:14:35

prevent

1:14:35

b12 so what you're essentially saying is that we're dealing with b12 that was

1:14:40

in soil and then in water

1:14:42

and that by the chlorination and filtration systems that we use today that's

1:14:48

what's ruining the water and

1:14:50

the water does not have we sanitize water now which is a good thing yes but

1:14:54

that also takes out the b12

1:14:56

sure so here so that makes your statement correct so so he was wrong again that's

1:14:59

not the consensus

1:15:01

view that you can get enough b12 from eating unwashed vegetables but that's not

1:15:05

what he didn't

1:15:06

necessarily say that was the consensus view what he said in the statement was

1:15:09

that the reason why we

1:15:11

no longer have b12 in the water and in the soil is because of the fact that

1:15:14

they add chlorines and

1:15:15

pesticides and it seems like there's evidence to back that so again now people

1:15:20

have questioned did

1:15:21

i spend a thousand hours okay now that i'm giving you the facts do you question

1:15:26

that i spent a thousand

1:15:27

hours i've spent sent another two thousand hours looking at peer-reviewed

1:15:30

research since then if you

1:15:31

say you have i don't have no reason to disbelieve it's a lot of time it's a lot

1:15:35

of thousand hours is

1:15:36

a lot of time like what was it lane uh lane norton said that you should

1:15:40

probably have gotten a phd

1:15:42

i think well i don't think that's the case i think there's people a lot smarter

1:15:45

than me

1:15:46

that are making these scientific but i mean that amount of hours of research

1:15:49

you literally i've

1:15:50

estimated that i've done conservative estimate i've done since then about 3 000

1:15:54

hours because once i

1:15:54

started making the film and doing that then i didn't anyway i believe you so

1:15:58

anyway there are also

1:15:58

b12 analogs in the soil that aren't absorbed and utilized like true b12 okay

1:16:03

but again you don't

1:16:04

can we admit the two things the two things that we've you touched on so far you

1:16:09

you got wrong

1:16:10

absolutely that it's proven that cattle do receive b12 under whatever

1:16:16

circumstances i don't know whether

1:16:18

it's because they're grass-fed or grain-fed i'm assuming they're feedlot

1:16:22

animals that don't get proper

1:16:23

nutrients from soil right don't get proper i mean if you're getting these grain

1:16:28

fell

1:16:28

fed soybean fed cattle and they're just pouring this dried out into a bucket

1:16:34

these animals are not

1:16:34

grazing and they're likely deficient in a lot of different things sorry and

1:16:38

that's why there's also

1:16:39

they've always been supplementing their diet with minerals supplementing diet

1:16:43

with vitamins and that's

1:16:43

the funny thing people like oh well um let's just take the extreme end of a

1:16:47

plant-based diet

1:16:48

vegans right so people say oh well vegans have to take a supplement well guess

1:16:52

what you're

1:16:52

supplementing anyway you're just doing it indirectly if you are eating that

1:16:56

kind of

1:16:57

99 of the of the somewhere around there 97 to 99 yeah whatever so so the vast

1:17:04

majority so where

1:17:05

you know people are getting it you're supplementing you're not just something

1:17:08

by b12 you're supplementing

1:17:09

d in the in the you're getting it from someone who supplements it in the feed

1:17:13

of the animal and

1:17:14

then you get it that way exactly generally not if you're eating grass-fed beef

1:17:18

not if you're eating

1:17:21

you love to grass-fed beef against one to three percent but let's just let's

1:17:25

just admit that you

1:17:26

made a mistake can you just admit that you made a mistake about both of those

1:17:31

things b12 in cattle

1:17:33

and and then you have a third point so we had the b12 in cattle you had that

1:17:37

you there was no

1:17:38

ever you said there was zero evidence about that you said there was no evidence

1:17:41

about being able to

1:17:42

get it from water and and uh from dirt which again i proved to be for you to be

1:17:46

wrong and and the

1:17:47

third thing that you said i said that there's no evidence that humans primarily

1:17:52

got their b12 from

1:17:53

eating from soil and water which is what you said no i didn't you're misrepresenting

1:18:01

again he's

1:18:01

misrepresenting and he's wrong joe you've got to admit that in this case well

1:18:05

it's clearly wrong about

1:18:06

b12 being given to cattle i mean we showed three different supplements this is

1:18:11

so it says before

1:18:12

industrial farming farm animals and humans could get b12 by eating traces of

1:18:17

dirt on plant foods or by

1:18:18

drinking water from rivers or streams so you don't think that people will get

1:18:21

the idea from hearing

1:18:22

that that we never needed to consume animal products to get b12 and we only

1:18:29

only could we could get

1:18:30

plenty from eating correct so where is the evidence for for that other than the

1:18:36

one study that you showed

1:18:38

there that that's because most evidence of vegans is even vegans who are

1:18:43

supplementing these are

1:18:45

modern vegans right yeah so he's talking about something but you see what he's

1:18:48

going off on a

1:18:49

track here because he's got two things wrong so the third thing on this because

1:18:52

his statement is

1:18:53

essentially saying that the reason why we don't get it today is because of we

1:18:57

sanitize

1:18:58

yes so your third point you i said this you took issue with my claim okay and

1:19:04

up to 39 of people

1:19:06

tested including meat eaters are low in b12 as a result the best way for humans

1:19:10

to get enough b12

1:19:11

whether they eat animal foods or not is simply take a supplement then you said

1:19:15

he didn't provide a

1:19:16

reference for that so it's hard to check but again it contradicts you know mounds

1:19:20

of evidence on b12

1:19:21

efficiency so can you bring up slide 50 please jamie you said that i didn't

1:19:26

provide a reference

1:19:28

okay but in the bottom left where we put all of the references whenever i made

1:19:32

a claim about the

1:19:33

scientific research oh well it's covered by the yeah it'll go away in a second

1:19:37

okay

1:19:38

okay allegedly there you go so so first of all there's the reference you claim

1:19:43

we didn't have

1:19:44

a reference would you admit that you were wrong i missed that okay three times

1:19:47

wrong about b12

1:19:48

okay so can we just go into your study your sorry your ebook on b12 you

1:19:53

basically said i don't know

1:19:55

where you got that study from your b12 ebook opens with the exact same study so

1:20:01

can you put up slide 51

1:20:03

please jamie okay is that your ebook on the left yes okay you rounded up to 40

1:20:10

but i kept it at 39

1:20:11

okay uh because i was being specific b12 deficiency is far more common than

1:20:16

most healthcare practitioners

1:20:18

and the general public realize data from the tufts university framing and

1:20:21

offering study

1:20:22

study suggests that 40 of people between the ages of 26 and 83 have plasma b12

1:20:28

levels in the low normal

1:20:29

range a range at which many experience neurological symptoms that was the

1:20:35

opening statement of your b12

1:20:38

ebook and you claimed that where you couldn't find the evidence of that study i

1:20:43

no disagreement that b12

1:20:45

deficiency is an issue i've talked about that on my website that's not that's

1:20:49

not what you said on the

1:20:50

last time you're on joe's podcast you said i don't know he didn't provide a

1:20:54

reference for that so it's

1:20:55

hard to check but it contradicts the evidence if that's not reflective of the

1:20:59

preponderance of evidence

1:21:00

why did you open your ebook with it it's not okay so there's two different

1:21:06

issues here one is

1:21:08

do omnivores get b12 deficiency yes they do okay and 40 people tested in this

1:21:13

study which is the one

1:21:14

that you reference that's right and there are many i'm not saying the study is

1:21:18

bad but you said let's

1:21:20

look at all of you said that i didn't provide a reference but did you do you

1:21:22

write your own ebooks

1:21:24

by the way i do and you don't remember that study no i write a lot okay james

1:21:29

do you know how do you

1:21:30

have any idea how many articles i've written over the years do you remember

1:21:34

every study from every

1:21:36

article i don't know if you're right no i don't because i'm a combative trainer

1:21:39

and that's the

1:21:40

thing do you not feel like i'm a combative trainer you yourself recognize that

1:21:43

you're not a nutrition

1:21:44

expert right you said that at the beginning i'm not a nutritionist i have

1:21:49

master's level training in

1:21:51

nutrition so i mean yeah so there's two so you've got a number of things wrong

1:21:56

about b12 there's two

1:21:58

issues what does that specifically mean like master's level training in

1:22:01

nutrition right thank you joe

1:22:02

well in california uh acupuncturists have a four-year master's program which

1:22:07

includes a lot of medical

1:22:09

sciences and nutrition research methodology etc because we're considered

1:22:14

primary care providers in

1:22:16

the state of california so the training is a lot different than it is in other

1:22:20

places so

1:22:22

there's the question of can omnivores develop b12 deficiency yes they can if

1:22:29

you go and look at the

1:22:30

rest of the ebook it's because of things like sebo right and you're actually

1:22:34

higher ranges you'll

1:22:36

actually accept higher ranges of what would be considered potentially deficient

1:22:40

right yeah you'll say

1:22:41

like three four hundred might be deficient so that would mean that even more

1:22:45

people were deficient

1:22:46

right now i'm not arguing that vegans can be more deficient than omnivores um

1:22:50

but can i just go to

1:22:52

slide 52 so can i go to slide 52 so what is that what is the question here if

1:22:57

you're not arguing no

1:22:58

i'm there's 12 deficiency there's not be more is more common and i'm pointing

1:23:03

out that you made

1:23:03

vegetarian i'm pointing out that you because that is what clinically makes the

1:23:07

difference if someone is

1:23:08

b12 deficient i'll get then then they think i think i'm not prepared to get to

1:23:12

that i will get to that you

1:23:15

like the four or five claims that i made about b12 were patently false i've

1:23:20

already pointed out three

1:23:22

of the things that you got wrong out of the five and you are the one that like

1:23:27

is recommending telling

1:23:29

people what to eat i am a combatives trainer and my facts in this case are the

1:23:34

this doesn't change

1:23:35

anything about the facts i'm recommending no it is the recommendation is still

1:23:40

that people get enough

1:23:42

b12 and that they are less likely to do that on a vegetarian and vegan diet and

1:23:47

there's lots of

1:23:48

studies showing that can an omnivore can an omnivore develop b12 deficiency

1:23:54

absolutely i see it in my

1:23:55

practice and nearly all of the people that not the vast majority no no no no i

1:23:59

didn't say that the vast

1:24:00

majority of that 40 were meat eaters you referenced you didn't reference the

1:24:04

study that's only because

1:24:05

there are more meat eaters in the general population that has nothing to do

1:24:09

with the fact that beat that

1:24:10

meat eaters are getting more b12 deficient i'm not arguing we've got all of

1:24:14

these studies about

1:24:15

homocysteine nine out of ten reviews that have shown higher homocysteine levels

1:24:19

in vegans

1:24:21

can we stick to the point that he made last time as i'll never get to rub up

1:24:24

okay so you when you

1:24:26

referenced the framium study you didn't link to the study you linked to an

1:24:29

article from the usda

1:24:30

about the study and that study said oddly uh the researchers found no again

1:24:36

this is the opening

1:24:38

statement of your ebook references this study but you felt you didn't mention

1:24:43

this part oddly the

1:24:44

researchers found no association between plasma b12 levels and meat poultry and

1:24:49

fish intake even though

1:24:50

those foods supply the bulk of b12 in the diet it's not because people aren't

1:24:53

eating enough meat to get

1:24:54

the b12 tucker said it's the vitamin isn't getting absorbed so is that so this

1:25:00

backs up my claim that

1:25:03

the safest way to get b12 is to take a supplement now chris will just say for

1:25:06

60 can i just finish on

1:25:08

this point and then you can rebut so your claim was well people can just go and

1:25:13

get um so you agree

1:25:14

that so you know i would say that vegans that don't supplement and omnivores

1:25:17

there's a lot more deficiency

1:25:18

in vegans right like it's a it's a nutrient of concern that vegans should be

1:25:22

cautious of i agree

1:25:24

with pretty much universally that's accepted right yes so but that you even if

1:25:28

you don't accept the 40

1:25:29

number even though that you said that i didn't say i didn't accept that it

1:25:32

doesn't matter whether

1:25:34

you accept it or not like you've even said that like we should consider higher

1:25:37

levels b12 division

1:25:38

so it would make even more but doesn't that doesn't really matter the point is

1:25:42

that you were saying that

1:25:45

um where was i going with this hang on they're saying the vitamins not getting

1:25:49

absorbed and that b12

1:25:51

oh so my point my point was it's safer to just take a b12 supplement and for

1:25:55

the general population in

1:25:56

the world that is the best recommendation you'll say you can go to your doctors

1:26:00

and get a 60 dollar

1:26:02

blood test and test for b12 and then you can decide whether you need a

1:26:05

supplement or not may i

1:26:05

mass stop you guys both here why isn't it getting absorbed if there is a higher

1:26:09

level of vitamin b12 and

1:26:11

fish and there's other factors that inhibit the absorption so what are those

1:26:14

one yeah one likely

1:26:16

people's conditions but also in the overgrowth in the small intestine so so so

1:26:20

joe so basically

1:26:21

um but we still have that we still have the data here can i just go back to the

1:26:26

argument about

1:26:27

because i said the best safest way for everyone to get b12 is to take a

1:26:30

supplement right you say well

1:26:31

you can just spend sixty dollars and get a blood test but you've got to

1:26:34

recognize that in the world

1:26:37

not everybody can afford sixty dollars okay so the safest way to get b12 if

1:26:42

whether you eat meat or

1:26:43

not is to get take a b12 supplement we know it's the surest way let's just all

1:26:46

agree on that it's

1:26:47

the surest way it's the surest way for sure but then when you've got studies

1:26:51

that show you know 11

1:26:54

of omnivores have b12 depletion versus 77 of vegetarians and 92 of vegans you

1:27:00

know that's with using

1:27:02

holotranscobalamin which is a much more sensitive marker b12 deficiency than

1:27:06

serum b12 which is really

1:27:07

problematic and then you have nine out of ten comparisons of homocysteine that

1:27:12

found higher

1:27:13

levels of homocysteine and vegetarians in omnivores and higher levels in vegans

1:27:20

compared to vegetarians

1:27:21

and homocysteine is also a more sensitive marker than serum b12 so there's four

1:27:25

stages of b12 deficiency

1:27:27

and serum b12 will only go down out of range in the fourth and final stage of b12

1:27:33

deficiency so these

1:27:34

other studies that i shared on the last show were looking at holotranscobalamin

1:27:39

which was the most

1:27:41

sensitive marker b12 depletion it's not technically deficiency at that point

1:27:46

and then you have homocysteine

1:27:47

and methylmalonic acid that are uh more sent less sensitive than holotranscobalamin

1:27:52

but more sensitive

1:27:53

than serum b12 okay okay can you bring up slide 54 please okay and i need to

1:28:00

show you so not only have

1:28:03

you got all the facts wrong so far about b12 of my claims you said that they

1:28:06

were all false and they

1:28:07

weren't false right every claim that i made so far was backed up by science and

1:28:11

you have admitted that

1:28:12

you made mistakes okay so this is your slide this is your slide right this is

1:28:17

because this is how i can show

1:28:19

that he's hand picking these studies to make his claim you said that 92 percent

1:28:23

of vegans were deficient

1:28:25

in let's read what it says is b12 depletion among uh omnivores vegetarians and

1:28:30

vegans uh vegans now

1:28:32

we got to remember that most people are probably listening versus watching oh

1:28:35

sorry yeah okay so vegans

1:28:37

92 it says 77 vegetarians 77 and omnivores 11 for b12 uh depletion but that

1:28:46

study showed it was more

1:28:47

like 40 percent of depletion even across the board but i'm not trying to

1:28:51

compare the two okay i'm just

1:28:53

trying to say your case by using the study is that 92 of vegans are deficient

1:28:57

in b12 and omnivores are not

1:28:59

deficient okay depleted whatever i'm i'm not i'm not going to try okay whatever

1:29:03

the number i'm not trying

1:29:03

to pick i'm not trying to pick apart this study i agree with the study okay

1:29:07

okay can you just go to

1:29:08

the next slide please chris i think it's slide 55 okay this is from the study

1:29:16

okay this is from 16

1:29:18

years ago by the way okay and a very small study from 16 years ago and this is

1:29:21

why i show you that

1:29:21

he's hand picking the data that he uses and this is where i go back to the fact

1:29:24

that it's about the

1:29:25

interpretation of the totality of evidence and you can't really rely on someone

1:29:29

that's not a nutrition

1:29:30

expert hand picking studies to suit their bias so in sub this is what he said

1:29:34

in subjects who did not

1:29:36

consume vitamins the levels were what chris said right 11 in omnivores 70 and

1:29:43

so i would agree like

1:29:44

if you couldn't get b12 anywhere you should incorporate some animal foods into

1:29:47

your diet

1:29:47

fair okay but let's look at some other studies so slide 56 and again i'm only

1:29:53

choosing a few

1:29:54

i'm sure you know certainly they're in my favor and i'm not saying that vegans

1:29:58

don't have lower b12

1:29:59

levels because some people don't supplement right but you i'm showing that you

1:30:02

handpicked a study

1:30:03

from 16 years ago slide 56 from uh and this is for a new study from 2018 with

1:30:09

twice the sample size

1:30:11

uh of ones and you know people now know you should take a b12 supplement the

1:30:15

studied markers indicate

1:30:16

a generally sufficient cobalamin status independently of the diet preferences

1:30:20

lacto over vegetarian or vegan

1:30:22

slide 57 now this is a study that looked at runners in may of 2019 really

1:30:29

current and it feels like you

1:30:32

might not have the most current data because you said to me in your email that

1:30:36

you this nutrition is

1:30:37

only one part of what you do and you have lots of other things that you're

1:30:40

doing right so slide 57

1:30:43

this is comparing vegans vegetarians and omnivores and these are runners yeah

1:30:47

and recreational runners

1:30:48

recreational runners yeah all three groups showed an adequate biomarker status

1:30:52

of b12 related parameters

1:30:54

and then flight 58 it would be and this one not only backs up my point about

1:31:00

vegans but also

1:31:01

uh and plant-based eaters but also um that supplement users are better so the

1:31:06

vitamin b12 status of

1:31:08

supplement users of vegans and omnivores was higher compared to the non-supplement

1:31:12

users and a higher

1:31:13

proportion of non-supplement users had b12 parameters outside the reference

1:31:17

range you know they were

1:31:18

low so again that's more evidence that people it's a good idea to supplement in

1:31:23

general because you just

1:31:25

have higher levels and after and the consensus recommendations after you get

1:31:29

over 50 you have lower

1:31:30

intrinsic it's a water-soluble vitamin anyway yeah but after 50 you lose

1:31:34

intrinsic factors so you can't

1:31:35

absorb as much so right it's not it's not dangerous to have higher levels so

1:31:39

even no no you could yeah

1:31:40

exactly it's a good thing to supplement period right and the blanket

1:31:43

recommendation so every single thing

1:31:45

that i said in the b12 statement is true and backed up by so so jamie bring up

1:31:51

slide 59 for me if we're

1:31:54

looking at totality of evidence let's look at more evidence totally but again i

1:32:00

i'm not pointing those

1:32:01

three studies out to say there's not more i'm saying that you hand picked a

1:32:05

study where vegans no i didn't

1:32:06

hand pick a study james there's many studies here no you picked one where they

1:32:10

were not taking vitamins

1:32:11

and i agree so we agree that people on plant-based diets should take vitamin b12

1:32:17

i see what you're saying

1:32:18

and we agree that most people are getting their b12 supplement in any way just

1:32:23

indirectly through animals

1:32:25

fair enough fair enough if you follow the diet that these animals were on which

1:32:30

is the majority of people

1:32:32

and again i would say like look if you want to eat 95 plants and you're going

1:32:35

to know how common

1:32:36

it is for them to supplement animal diet with b12 is it a rare thing no no

1:32:41

sorry with cattle

1:32:42

with cattle it's lower because there's a lot of a lot but much it's not that

1:32:46

rare well it's lower but it's not super rare

1:32:48

because a lot of soil is deficient in cobalt and cows need to consume the cobalt

1:32:53

to manufacture the b12

1:32:55

in their in their room so it's more of a side effect of uh mineral and nutrient

1:33:00

deficient soils but not

1:33:01

for pigs and chickens and that sort of stuff so vegans have higher homocysteine

1:33:07

levels than omnivores

1:33:09

nine out of ten comparisons found higher homocysteine levels in vegetarians and

1:33:13

omnivores and higher levels

1:33:14

in vegans than vegetarians right and the prevalence of hyperhomocysteine homocysteine

1:33:20

among vegetarians may actually be higher than that among non-vegetarians

1:33:24

already diagnosed with heart

1:33:25

disease so that's nine of ten comparisons that's not hand-picking one study

1:33:30

that's nine out of ten

1:33:32

comparisons that have been done on this topic right and the out like you said

1:33:35

before we shouldn't just

1:33:36

look at the markers we should look at the outcomes right and the outcomes is

1:33:41

that vegans and vegetarians

1:33:45

with higher homocysteine levels do not have increased risk of cardiovascular

1:33:48

disease or diabetes or death

1:33:50

from those or from cancer i didn't make the claim that they do from that study

1:33:55

i'm making we're talking

1:33:56

about b12 and homocysteine being a marker right and i am and chris i am showing

1:34:01

that you picked

1:34:02

a study from 2016 which have a very small sample size that was nine out of ten

1:34:06

comparisons right there

1:34:08

that was not the only study that i i'm not saying that i'm not saying that

1:34:12

study i am saying that when

1:34:13

you came to b12 all of the statements that i made in the film were true and you

1:34:17

said that they were

1:34:18

patently false and you were wrong i didn't joe come on like now listen i've

1:34:23

come in here i've said it

1:34:25

already yeah no i just want to make sure you're correct right because i've come

1:34:29

in here and people

1:34:30

are saying oh what are you going to say to that debunk chris did not debunk the

1:34:33

film he made

1:34:34

misrepresentations of our claims and he got things factually wrong well he

1:34:38

certainly seems to have gotten

1:34:40

it factually wrong that animals particularly cows are not given b12 supplements

1:34:44

he certainly seems to have

1:34:45

gotten it factually wrong that at least some of the b12 that people would be

1:34:50

able to get in the past

1:34:52

they got from water and soil and that 40 of people are uh division and that the

1:34:56

best way to get b12

1:34:57

is the supplement so he got everything so i don't agree can i just finish can i

1:35:03

just finish yes

1:35:04

i know but you're but you're wrong so so the thing is i have proven that he got

1:35:08

three or four things

1:35:09

factually wrong about b12 right and i am a combatives instructor okay i've

1:35:14

heard that

1:35:15

right so but i'm just saying i'm putting myself down i understand i'm not like

1:35:19

a super intelligent

1:35:20

guy but you are you are very intelligent i've said that before and what you did

1:35:23

is you did research on

1:35:24

these very important subjects and you acquired a lot of data so this is what

1:35:28

people do when they go to

1:35:29

school i mean it's like the difference between someone who's educated and not

1:35:32

educated is not

1:35:33

whether or not they go to a specific place totally it's whether or not they

1:35:37

absorb the information and

1:35:38

when they study and you said you studied a thousand hours before the film and

1:35:41

three thousand cents

1:35:43

that you're you're obviously educated you understand what you're talking about

1:35:46

so so um anyway you got

1:35:49

things factually wrong about b12 so to the people listening or watching do you

1:35:53

really want to put

1:35:54

the interpretation of the data in the hands of someone that just got so many

1:35:57

things wrong

1:35:58

about b12 well he got things wrong about your assertions about b12 yeah i made

1:36:04

i made four

1:36:04

five claims that still stand that vegetarians and vegans have much higher rates

1:36:10

of b12 depletion or

1:36:11

deficiency than omnivores the bulk of the studies they're supplementing they do

1:36:15

not if they're

1:36:16

supplementing they don't but if they don't everyone agrees but like there's no

1:36:20

disagreement vegans and

1:36:21

vegetarians and anyone over 50 and mo like the safest way and you're now disputing

1:36:26

the safest way

1:36:26

to get b12 is to take a supplement it's the best way to get the surest way to

1:36:30

get b12 but it's not

1:36:31

necessary for many people right for people that can afford to get blood tests

1:36:35

which is not most of the

1:36:36

world like you will it was sitting in america in a nice like air-conditioned

1:36:41

room and you know we've

1:36:42

got cars and we drove here and we can afford to go to the doctor like the best

1:36:46

way to get b12 is to

1:36:47

take a supplement period and you're wrong if you think otherwise if you can

1:36:51

afford yeah sure if you

1:36:53

can afford blood tests every six months if you but we're gonna get 12

1:36:56

supplements to everybody around

1:36:58

the world that's expensive right here's the thing if you have a diet that gives

1:37:03

you the ample amount of

1:37:04

b12 then you don't need a supplement then you don't need a supplement sure what

1:37:07

you're saying is that

1:37:08

blood tests are expensive so you should take an expensive supplement no they're

1:37:13

not expensive

1:37:13

b12 no it's like if you buy it in bulk it's like two dollars a year but no i'm

1:37:17

not saying that

1:37:18

yeah yeah if you buy it two dollars a year where the fuck you buy your vitamins

1:37:21

if you if you if you buy it you probably want to really yeah you've got it but

1:37:27

the thing the trick is

1:37:28

you gotta like you'd have to split it with a bunch of uh people because it's

1:37:31

like a year's worth

1:37:32

of supply but anyway jesus christ so so no the argument is that i feel like i

1:37:36

should donate to

1:37:37

the world if it's only two bucks a year i feel like i could hook a lot of

1:37:40

people up i've also shown

1:37:42

that in the study that you presented in your ebook stated that like they weren't

1:37:46

absorbing it as well

1:37:47

from animal products i'm not saying there's not b12 in animal products and also

1:37:50

we have to remember

1:37:51

one last thing that the b12 that people are getting in animal products it was

1:37:55

supplemented in the first

1:37:56

place in some in some cases in the vast majority of fish not in grass fed not

1:38:02

as much in the vast

1:38:05

majority of animal products that people are eating b12 was supplemented and so

1:38:09

i'm just saying the

1:38:10

safest way to get b12 is take a supplement in the vast majority is that true

1:38:13

yeah you think the vast

1:38:14

majority of people are eating uh wild caught fish and i don't know how many

1:38:18

animals are actually

1:38:19

getting those supplements all of the chickens all the chickens all of the

1:38:22

chickens chickens are omnivores

1:38:26

they're not fed omnivorous diets for the most part unless they're free-range

1:38:30

chickens if you give it

1:38:31

you ever seen a chicken up a mouse it's pretty stunning yeah yeah they're carnivorous

1:38:36

little monsters

1:38:37

then chickens and when you get them and you get those eggs and the eggs are

1:38:40

like a really dull yellow those

1:38:43

are animals they're eating grain only those are vegetarian chickens that's not

1:38:47

what they want to

1:38:48

eat what they want to eat is worms yeah they're not living in their natural

1:38:51

state right in their natural

1:38:52

state they probably don't need to have supplementation this is sort of an

1:38:56

argument against vegetarian diets

1:38:58

for chickens really because no chickens aren't really supposed to eat that way

1:39:02

yeah and feedlot for

1:39:03

beef feedlot for beef exactly they're not supposed to eat grain either can we

1:39:07

get to protein because i think

1:39:08

if we miss protein then we've like done no we're not gonna miss we have plenty

1:39:10

of time cool i'll keep

1:39:12

going all day 12 you made some excellent points and you definitely uh cleared

1:39:17

up uh what was what

1:39:20

was misrepresented right and it's it's really why i really appreciate you

1:39:23

having me on because you guys

1:39:25

did like a three-hour debunk right and there was just a lot of things that were

1:39:29

factually wrong and

1:39:30

there's more that i can point out okay let's let's get i really i really

1:39:33

appreciate you having me on

1:39:34

my pleasure i appreciate you being here and i really appreciate chris and as

1:39:37

long as as much as we

1:39:38

disagree i really appreciate you coming on and giving me the opportunity and

1:39:42

you being here so let's

1:39:43

talk about i know i'm i know i'm getting like emotional and something but i'm

1:39:46

annoyed like people

1:39:46

yeah i'm trying to seven years you know yeah i get it cool so uh you want to

1:39:52

talk about protein and

1:39:53

yes what the issues are there's still so it's also just the red meat and dairy

1:39:59

thing outstanding too

1:40:01

oh whether or not red meat's bad for you yeah we never really cleared that up

1:40:04

well why do you think

1:40:05

that red meat is bad we can go with protein but let's let's finish that okay

1:40:08

because we really

1:40:09

should finish that we can always use the protein because i'm sure protein is

1:40:12

going to be a long

1:40:13

discussion well i know i think it's going to happen here so we can talk about

1:40:16

red meat i've

1:40:17

shown that like some of the individual things like heme iron for example are

1:40:20

shown to be

1:40:21

uh pro-inflammatory and by the way just to back you up um let me see where the

1:40:28

slide is

1:40:28

pro-inflammatory necessarily correlated with poor health because sometimes

1:40:33

things uh that

1:40:34

provide uh information yeah yeah your body has a a positive reaction yeah it's

1:40:40

a hormetic hormetic

1:40:41

stressor yeah so there are things like exercise you exercise you create yeah

1:40:44

yeah yeah hormesis right

1:40:45

right sure sauna yeah yeah and it's the same thing where he'll sort of try and

1:40:50

show that fish uh you

1:40:51

know he'll the tmao for example you'll say well how can tmao be bad we'll get

1:40:56

to that we'll get to that

1:40:57

but let's let's stick with red meat why do you think red meat's bad for tmao is

1:41:00

one of the things

1:41:01

okay in red meat just like heme iron that i just showed is inflammatory but he

1:41:04

he mine is associated

1:41:06

with cardiovascular risks and that he mine is found in meat and eating plants

1:41:11

in a healthy diet pattern

1:41:14

it offsets it absolutely yeah is there evidence that eating meat by itself is

1:41:18

associated with

1:41:19

cardiovascular disease nobody ever has eaten meat by itself what about these

1:41:24

carnivore people well

1:41:26

there's no research those guys are the canaries in the coal mine aren't they

1:41:29

there's no research on

1:41:30

that so that's one that's one of my people just eating all meat diet yeah there's

1:41:36

not yeah i mean

1:41:37

i mean we both agree like let's just create a false dichotomy chris if you if

1:41:41

there was a cut like all

1:41:43

animal products diet not just carnivore but eggs and all this stuff and then

1:41:46

there was a fully plant-based diet

1:41:47

subliminary b12 which one would you advocate if false dichotomy uh i'd probably

1:41:54

pick the plant

1:41:56

diet probably all uh although i would be concerned about nutrient deficiencies

1:42:01

yeah i i've never

1:42:03

advocated for the carnivore diet i said as much in the last show but that says

1:42:07

something about plants right

1:42:10

plants are awesome right so we agree on that yeah he's never had anything wrong

1:42:14

no no what all he's

1:42:16

ever said was that eliminating all animal products from your diet is probably

1:42:22

not healthy unless you

1:42:23

follow a very strict routine where you make sure that you have all your bases

1:42:28

covered nutritionally

1:42:29

that's what chris has said from the jump yeah i would i would extend that and

1:42:33

just say that i don't

1:42:34

think there's strong evidence suggesting that including some animal products in

1:42:39

your whole foods

1:42:40

plant-based diet is harmful and can i can i just where that's where we seem to

1:42:43

have it and i even

1:42:45

said that the range of that can vary tremendously could be five percent for

1:42:49

some someone who's just

1:42:50

eating uh mostly plant-based diet and they're eating some shellfish and organ

1:42:55

meats for the nutrient

1:42:56

density or you could have someone who eats more animal products and depends on

1:43:00

the person what their

1:43:01

needs are i go with that first half and the second half but just to back up uh

1:43:05

what joe does um slide

1:43:07

62 because i mentioned this earlier but we didn't put a slide on but i think

1:43:11

the graphic again i know most

1:43:13

we were listening so if maybe joe you could uh describe it to people

1:43:16

differences in post-prandial

1:43:18

inflammatory responses to a modern versus traditional meat meal so this is

1:43:23

basically this is the kangaroo

1:43:24

this is kangaroo meat versus beef wagyu beef is that how you pronounce it i

1:43:28

think so okay so so uh you'd

1:43:30

recognize that marks in crp tnf alpha and il6 are inflammatory markers yeah

1:43:37

okay good so i just want to

1:43:38

point out that like yeah if you're going to eat 90 plants and you're going to

1:43:41

eat the rest of it from

1:43:41

animal products i think that wild caught elk and um kangaroo meat stuff like

1:43:48

that would be the way to go

1:43:50

by far well it just makes sense just to show you like there's look at the the

1:43:56

there's about half the

1:43:57

inflammation roughly coming from uh the wild core well that makes sense because

1:44:02

most of the time we're

1:44:03

dealing with when you're dealing with beef you're dealing with this grain-fed

1:44:08

unhealthy animal when you're

1:44:09

talking about wagyu beef that is that's a dying animal i mean if you saw a

1:44:14

person whose muscle

1:44:16

tissue looked like a wagyu steak you'd be like bro you got to get on a diet you

1:44:21

know i mean really but

1:44:22

if you saw like you know an athlete if you looked at an athlete's muscle tissue

1:44:27

would look like a piece

1:44:29

of elk most likely it would look very lean and healthy right and dense so

1:44:33

anyway i just wanted to

1:44:34

point out that one that shows a couple of things that shows that meat does

1:44:37

create inflammation i would

1:44:39

like to see this on grass-fed meat yeah as opposed to this feedlot no but even

1:44:44

if it matched the uh

1:44:46

you know the the kangaroo meat we're still seeing inflammation there and yeah

1:44:50

and certainly like

1:44:51

he said i agree if you're going to eat animal foods i think it's wise timing

1:44:55

wise to eat a lot of plant

1:44:57

foods with that those animal foods right well i definitely think if you're

1:45:01

going to eat animal foods you

1:45:02

should eat a lot of plants with it there's also a lot of benefits to it in

1:45:06

terms of fiber in terms of

1:45:08

your the bio microbiota yeah there's there's a lot of benefits to having these

1:45:14

fermented vegetables as

1:45:15

well you know things like uh kimchi and and having things that provide you with

1:45:22

good probiotics all

1:45:23

these things there's great benefit to a lot of plant foods yeah and people on

1:45:27

plant-based diets uh just end up

1:45:29

getting naturally getting more fiber for most people are deficient in fiber

1:45:33

right and if you look at like

1:45:34

the paleolithic period you'd be looking at like maybe 100 grams of fiber i

1:45:38

agree and very high fiber

1:45:40

intake and and and plant people on plant-based diets get more fiber than people

1:45:43

in on other diets as long

1:45:45

as you're eating healthy as we we both agree oh yeah pasta and pizza but just

1:45:50

to be fair though

1:45:51

even in vegans and vegetarians in all of the studies they're still getting more

1:45:56

fiber despite the fact

1:45:57

that i you and i would agree they're not eating the healthiest diet overall

1:46:01

overall vegan uh overall

1:46:03

completely plant-based people are the only people that have uh fall within the

1:46:06

recommended bmi range

1:46:08

the people get the most fiber bmi range body mass index is that what you're

1:46:12

talking about yeah yeah but

1:46:13

body mass it's not a great it's not a great measure that's a shitty one right

1:46:16

that makes me obese

1:46:17

right yeah yeah there's there's a lot of nonsense to that i agree i agree

1:46:22

generally that if if you look at

1:46:24

people who are on a vegetarian or vegan diet compared with people on the

1:46:28

standard american

1:46:30

diet then they're gonna have right and people healthier right but that's also

1:46:33

the standard american

1:46:35

diet if you take someone who's eating healthy plates of of broccoli and kale

1:46:39

and also has a piece of

1:46:40

grass-fed meat that's what i want to talk about i want to talk about people

1:46:44

following a conscious diet

1:46:45

no i totally agree i of course you're going to see markers like for example the

1:46:49

longest study on a paleo diet

1:46:51

right they had a two-year follow-up and they had improved they'd lost body fat

1:46:55

they had improved

1:46:56

blood markers what was really interesting is okay they were told to eliminate

1:47:00

dairy right so you cut

1:47:01

out dairy they were told to reduce their amount of or cut out completely um

1:47:06

processed plant foods like

1:47:08

white flour and sugar and all this type of stuff they were told to increase

1:47:11

their fruits and vegetables

1:47:13

and they were told to increase their meat consumption and they got you know

1:47:17

improved health markers all

1:47:18

across the board right now now what was interesting is at the end of the two

1:47:21

years what they found was

1:47:23

that people had not stuck with the meat recommendations so they kept their meat

1:47:26

recommendations

1:47:27

the same they got out a processed junk food right and trans fats and stuff that

1:47:31

you'd all agree

1:47:32

we should get out of our diet right they took out milk out of their diet and

1:47:38

they increased the

1:47:38

amount of plant foods so it's very clear that the benefit did not come from

1:47:42

increasing meat consumption

1:47:44

it came from increased plant food consumption or i think the benefit is

1:47:50

decreasing

1:47:51

bullshit right yeah it's a two-fold thing right you cut out things that are

1:47:55

inflammatory and you put in

1:47:56

things that are anti-inflammatory you cut out things that are low in

1:47:59

antioxidants you incorporate things

1:48:00

that are high in antioxidants so that was the major benefit it wasn't from this

1:48:04

from increased meat

1:48:06

consumption who's saying it is from increased meat consumption not me no i'm

1:48:12

just saying that was the

1:48:13

benefit of a paleo diet is going in a more whole food plant-based direction i

1:48:16

think that's what everyone

1:48:17

says the idea is that you eliminate processed foods you eliminate sugar you

1:48:22

eliminate these things that

1:48:25

are just filled but we know that it's not just it's a two-fold difference when

1:48:28

you incorporate whole plant

1:48:29

foods there's the opportunity cost so you replace your you're getting rid of

1:48:34

crap and in my personal

1:48:35

opinion and based on the consensus you're replacing both highly processed foods

1:48:41

and animal foods and you're

1:48:42

incorporating more whole plant foods and that is the scientific consensus is to

1:48:45

eat a predominantly

1:48:46

plant-based diet you could say the same thing about the benefits you see with

1:48:50

vegetarian and vegan

1:48:51

studies comparing with standard i agree i agree you're removing a lot of the

1:48:56

crap i agree but what

1:48:57

what studies have you got comparing um a neutral or diet to you know a whole

1:49:01

food plant-based diet we

1:49:03

don't have them so we have to infer and when we infer we have to rely on

1:49:07

experts that are experts in their field

1:49:10

right we don't we don't turn to to chris and go okay can you tell us more about

1:49:13

nutrition anthropology

1:49:15

and urology than all of these experts i think that's i agree you shouldn't just

1:49:20

listen to me but

1:49:21

i don't think it's genuine just to suggest that there's a consensus that a

1:49:26

whole food plant-based diet

1:49:28

is a better choice than a plant-based diet that also contains some animal

1:49:33

products i agree with you that we

1:49:36

have no studies on that and we probably won't unfortunately in the near future

1:49:42

because right

1:49:43

especially for long-term outcomes right because you can't put people on for 40

1:49:46

years yeah they're not

1:49:47

going so we i agree that it's hard like again i've said before that we should

1:49:51

be getting the vast

1:49:52

majority of our calories from whole plant foods i think there's enough in the

1:49:55

literature to show and

1:49:56

and the academy of nutrition and dietetics recognizes that completely vegan

1:49:59

diets are helpful for

1:50:00

all the life stages including for athletes um i think that there's sufficient

1:50:03

evidence to go 100

1:50:04

but i'm not telling people that they should be doing that i'm saying people can

1:50:07

eat whatever they want

1:50:08

but i think we both agree that people should be getting out junk food right

1:50:12

soda and trans fats oh by

1:50:14

by the way on trans fats um so that's why i asked you in the beginning of the

1:50:20

show what what your

1:50:21

position was because that's the fundamental question for me is that is this

1:50:26

question that we're talking

1:50:28

about right now right which is is there sufficient evidence to to suggest that

1:50:33

you know everybody most

1:50:35

people whatever you want to say should be on 100 or even 95 percent plant-based

1:50:41

diet versus a plant-based diet

1:50:42

that contains some animal products and my argument all along has been no there's

1:50:48

not sufficient evidence

1:50:49

right but you also think that you also think that a completely plant-based diet

1:50:53

is likely to be nutrient deficient

1:50:54

and all these other things do you know do you know his history do you know how

1:50:58

he started out as a vegan

1:51:00

yeah yeah and that's why i think that there's i think there's emotional ties i

1:51:03

think you've

1:51:04

my history is not relevant you know that's an n equals one in terms of what you

1:51:09

presented yourself

1:51:10

you said that i had like burst mood and like but i've also said so you there

1:51:13

are people acknowledge

1:51:14

that there are many successful vegans and vegan athletes you've invoked the n

1:51:20

of one and also you

1:51:22

didn't follow the scientific consensus about plant-based diets when you did it

1:51:25

so you chose a

1:51:26

macrobiotic diet and you chose a raw vegan diet just those were just two

1:51:30

iterations right but why did you

1:51:31

choose those when they weren't based on scientific consensus because i wasn't

1:51:34

this was 20 years ago

1:51:37

and i wasn't paying attention to to it and you traveled around the world and

1:51:40

you got sick and

1:51:41

you attributed it to the diet which may or may not have been i didn't attribute

1:51:45

it to the diet

1:51:46

that's what i don't even know why we're talking my my experience because it's

1:51:50

relevant because it shows

1:51:52

that like i don't know why you were vegan or vegetarian maybe it was for like

1:51:54

animal rights reasons

1:51:55

maybe you felt bad for going back to eating meat so now you need to feel to

1:51:58

prove like the reason that

1:51:59

you need to the reason you need to debunk the film is because you've got a

1:52:03

massive business selling

1:52:04

supplements and protein powders and giving diet advice so our film doesn't make

1:52:08

you almost there's

1:52:10

i make very very little money selling supplements james it's not a massive

1:52:15

business it's it's basically a

1:52:16

convenience for my patients that's i'm just saying overall my business is

1:52:20

basically training people

1:52:22

right but being a clinician there's no i have i don't profit from you know

1:52:29

selling and like animal

1:52:31

product you do you do indirectly because you advise this diet so the film was

1:52:36

very bad for you personally

1:52:38

because if people believed the film which you know like the the defense health

1:52:42

agency they review the

1:52:43

film they don't care about like this myth that we should eat in exactly the

1:52:47

same way as our ancestors

1:52:48

not that we even really ate that way but they don't care about that myth they

1:52:51

care that what is going

1:52:52

to be better for warfighter effectiveness and to cut the healthcare costs of

1:52:56

our military so they looked

1:52:57

at the science independently you think they're like the defense health agency

1:53:00

is full of vegans i mean so you

1:53:03

have the film has is is neither here nor there for me but that's what we're

1:53:07

here for that's what you

1:53:08

were trying to you said that the film the reason that i'm here is because and

1:53:12

the reason that i came

1:53:14

when joe invited me and i appreciate you can probably tell you that i it took a

1:53:18

few invitations to get

1:53:20

me here it is just to provide the other side of the the view here it's not

1:53:26

because it materially affects me

1:53:30

in any way believe me i've got lots of other things as i told you in the email

1:53:34

that i'm focusing on so

1:53:36

even like my nutrition team they spend full time either consulting elite

1:53:40

athletes or military personnel

1:53:42

or they're digging into the research like our chief science advisor eight hours

1:53:46

a day all he does is

1:53:47

dig into the latest research so what you come you come on to joe's podcast and

1:53:51

you're supposed to like

1:53:52

people are supposed to believe that you are the best person to because you say

1:53:55

it's about the

1:53:55

meta-analysis and you say it's about the totality of evidence we agree but you're

1:53:58

suggesting is that

1:53:59

people should listen to your interpretation of the evidence when you get things

1:54:02

factually wrong

1:54:03

people should make up their own minds based on the evidence that we that we

1:54:08

have have provided and

1:54:10

you don't even know how to read a basic forest plot and all that is my point

1:54:14

because you're not certified

1:54:16

and you're not you look i i okay i'm again i'm not a specialist in nutrition

1:54:21

like i would have liked to

1:54:22

have bring my uh i'd like to have brought david our chief science advisor who

1:54:26

knows a hundred times

1:54:28

more about nutrition than i do and you're coming on here telling people what to

1:54:31

eat you said yourself

1:54:32

you're not an expert in nutrition and you don't know how to read the

1:54:35

nutritional data let's talk about

1:54:37

some of the claims okay let's talk about protein let's talk about protein no we're

1:54:40

talking about the

1:54:41

film let's talk about the protein so is that fair we should get to right okay

1:54:46

so can i just just so i

1:54:47

understand your position and i'm sorry for getting worked up like i feel like i'm

1:54:51

like an attorney

1:54:51

trying to interrogate you but i feel like i spent a lot of time digging into

1:54:55

research i had the the

1:54:56

research checked and checked and checked again i had the research checked to

1:55:00

make sure that it was

1:55:00

not cherry picking that it was reflective of the preponderance of evidence but

1:55:04

who was checking it

1:55:05

were they people who were not advocates of a whole food plant-based diet

1:55:10

exclusively or were they people

1:55:13

like because all of the experts in the film are people who are clearly aligned

1:55:17

with this that

1:55:19

perspective i interview them because they're aligned with the consensus and no

1:55:23

and over half of the

1:55:24

people i thought you just agreed that there is not a consensus that a hundred

1:55:29

percent plant-based diet

1:55:30

is better than a diet that includes a lot of plants and some animal products

1:55:35

yeah so so where were the

1:55:36

experts that would represent that point of view that it doesn't have to be a

1:55:42

hundred percent plant-based

1:55:44

diet i agree it doesn't have to be a hundred percent the film said plant-based

1:55:48

diets we now i'll

1:55:49

tell you why we only interviewed vegans for the athletes right the ones that

1:55:53

actually spoke on on screen

1:55:54

and arnold is not vegan he doesn't drink dairy he thinks it's for babies and he's

1:55:58

cut down meat by 80

1:56:00

but all the people i mean you know uh nate is not 100 vegan he's on a largely

1:56:04

plant-based diet eats a bit

1:56:06

of uh seafood and a bit of stuff like that but all the people yeah eggs as well

1:56:10

so all the reason

1:56:12

that we only put and by the way we did interview lauren cordain and rob wolf

1:56:15

and i can get to that as

1:56:16

well if you want because the anthropologists laughed in their faces those are

1:56:20

not the claims that you know

1:56:22

we're i'm talking about scientists who published these you know who are on the

1:56:26

team to publish the

1:56:27

papers that i've shared yeah like like nutrex who are funded by the industry

1:56:31

and we can get no not

1:56:32

neutral that's disingenuous to claim that all of the research that that i've

1:56:36

shared here is fun is

1:56:38

industry-funded so we can't acknowledge it but your claim that like you know

1:56:42

the recent study that just

1:56:43

came out and we're getting off track but the recent study that just came out

1:56:46

that said that red meat and

1:56:47

processed meat is totally fine right like you really want to go with that like

1:56:51

to me it feels like you

1:56:52

don't have your finger on the pulse honestly i'm not trying to be rude i think

1:56:55

you probably know a

1:56:56

lot about you think about that study well the nutrex study the study that said

1:57:02

that red meat

1:57:03

it's a nutrex study okay so in the annals of internal medicine the day before

1:57:08

the film came out

1:57:09

six studies exonerating red meat and processed meat all from the same company

1:57:15

that apparently giving

1:57:16

recommendations well guess what exponent and nutrex and companies like that are

1:57:20

not the ones that give

1:57:22

public recommendations on what people should be eating number one okay and we

1:57:25

talked about this

1:57:26

in the film with exponent nutrex is like another exponent so if you look at

1:57:30

their recommendations

1:57:32

first of all frank who uh frank who is now the chair of uh nutrition at harvard

1:57:36

he took uh what will

1:57:37

its place said the panels blanket recommendations that adults should continue

1:57:41

to uh their red meat

1:57:42

consumption habits is highly irresponsible walter will it said it's the most egregious

1:57:46

abuse of data he's ever seen and if you want to follow their recommendations if

1:57:50

you could put up

1:57:51

uh slide 92 so they did the same thing in 2017 uh for the sugar industry so

1:57:58

there was a meta analysis

1:58:00

in the uh annals when you say they you mean the neuter same come so that well

1:58:05

so it was so so bradley

1:58:06

johnston is the director and co-founder of nutrex and the first author of the

1:58:10

paper that we're talking

1:58:11

about for red meat okay they're just exonerated red meat apparently and

1:58:14

processed meat so this is

1:58:16

the same company says at this at present there seems to be no reliable evidence

1:58:19

indicating that

1:58:20

any of the recommended daily caloric thresholds for sugar intake are strongly

1:58:25

associated with negative

1:58:26

health effects so they did a meta analysis saying that don't worry about your

1:58:31

intake of sugar at all

1:58:33

that was what their meta analysis conclusion it came to and then two years

1:58:37

later the day before the

1:58:38

kiln's get film came out and do you really think that's a coincidence do you

1:58:41

think that the so let

1:58:43

me tell you something okay the of our email subscribers do you know the email

1:58:47

address of the person

1:58:49

that opens and views our emails the most it's from the beef checkoff program

1:58:54

and they've been doing

1:58:55

that since we started so they signed up for our mailing list they look at when

1:58:58

the film is coming out

1:59:00

and you don't you think it's a coincidence that the day before us the film

1:59:04

comes out they release

1:59:05

a paper exonerating red meat and cancer and the same thing so if you're going

1:59:09

to buy into the neutral

1:59:10

rec study about red meat and cancer then to be fair you've also got to buy into

1:59:14

their conclusions about

1:59:16

sugar because they were paid i'll tell you who they were paid by okay so um so

1:59:20

financial support for that

1:59:23

paper was funded by the technical it's called this now listen to this sounds

1:59:27

great the technical

1:59:28

committee on dietary carbohydrates of ilsi north america and isi is the

1:59:32

international life sciences

1:59:34

institute sounds pretty legit right so its members include coca-cola hershey

1:59:39

company pepsi company and

1:59:40

red bull and a bunch of others folks looking out for your best interests that

1:59:43

should go

1:59:44

okay so it would be a problem if that was the only so do you know you just you

1:59:49

just you claimed all

1:59:51

this recent study and i honestly again no disrespect you're busy with lots of

1:59:55

other things you run a

1:59:56

successful business consulting people selling stuff i get you don't have the

2:00:00

time you you weren't able

2:00:01

to read a basic forest plot to look at statistical significance and confidence

2:00:05

intervals okay i just

2:00:06

don't think that you're the one to interpret the data so the reason you don't

2:00:10

have a you you haven't

2:00:11

seen the hundreds of really respected scientists that have come out saying that

2:00:15

this nutirex study

2:00:16

and by the way there's an investigation into the annals of internal medicine

2:00:19

because of this uh for

2:00:20

accepting this stuff from nutirex but if you're going to accept the meta-analysis

2:00:25

on red meat and on uh

2:00:27

processed meat for cancer then you've also got to accept the 2017 study meta-analysis

2:00:32

if you accept

2:00:32

the source if you accept the source they're both the same it's the same

2:00:35

nutrients okay so are you saying

2:00:38

only if the only meta-analysis that showed no association between red meat and

2:00:43

and heart

2:00:44

disease or cancer that would be highly problematic i'm talking about the one

2:00:47

first i'm talking about

2:00:48

the one that you cited you made out this is like okay second of second of all i

2:00:52

have pointed out the

2:00:54

funded uh industry-funded research is four to eight times more likely right

2:00:59

yeah to do and going back to

2:01:01

that dairy one by the way do you know that when they did their meta-analysis

2:01:05

they they doubled and

2:01:06

tripled and quadrupled up because when they looked when the the meta-analysis

2:01:10

that analyzed the meta-analyses

2:01:12

the multi-analysis included um the studies multiple times you see what i'm

2:01:17

saying yeah because they

2:01:18

took into account each time and so when the industry floods the scientific

2:01:22

research with their funded

2:01:23

studies again if they find a study it doesn't turn out studying other studies

2:01:27

and coming to the same

2:01:28

conclusion and adding those on as if it's an additional study is that what you're

2:01:31

saying uh no it's so look if the

2:01:34

industry fund studies and it only did you decide if you're in a beef industry

2:01:38

or a dairy industry

2:01:39

are you going to put out studies that aren't in your favor no right and you

2:01:42

also they don't have

2:01:43

to you spin it and so what you do is like if you want to make uh beef look uh

2:01:46

if you want to make

2:01:47

saturated fat look um okay or if you want to make cholesterol okay you can you

2:01:51

know you can switch

2:01:52

things around the study to make it look good if you want to like look at eggs

2:01:55

and for example and i

2:01:56

don't want to get like it could turn into a three-hour debate about cholesterol

2:01:58

and saturated fat

2:01:59

but if you if you give uh if you go from 10 eggs a week to 12 eggs a week it

2:02:03

doesn't raise your

2:02:04

uh serum cholesterol so that's how they did the study but if you go from no

2:02:08

eggs a week to one

2:02:09

egg a week it does increase your because there's something called the

2:02:11

cholesterol plateau so what

2:02:12

the industry does is it tricks you it does but then when you look at eggs and

2:02:18

outcomes like cardiovascular

2:02:20

disease you don't see well you do but we're getting off track i was just making

2:02:23

a point that industry

2:02:24

funded studies sway the results of the meta-analysis right and i think that's i

2:02:27

think that's fair and

2:02:28

it's done with the sugar industry and it's done with it was done with tobacco

2:02:31

and again i'm not comparing

2:02:33

the the amount of increased risk of cancer from tobacco that was never a claim

2:02:36

that was made it was the

2:02:37

playbook that is used by the drug industry by the meat industry by the sugar

2:02:41

you know by the sugar

2:02:43

industry uh by the dairy industry so even though your film came out and these

2:02:48

studies came out right

2:02:49

before your film it's kind of proving your point that this same company that

2:02:53

tried to exonerate the

2:02:54

sugar industry is also if you're going to accept that if you're going to cite

2:02:57

that as evidence and

2:02:58

they're going to cite that the fact the reason i think because like you said

2:03:01

you're so busy on many

2:03:02

other things is i just don't think that your fingers on the that was not the

2:03:05

only study that i know

2:03:07

i know it's not i know it's there's many other meta-analyses 2010-15 we can

2:03:12

look at them

2:03:13

you know if well let's do that okay but can i just yeah let's do that

2:03:17

one let's look at those studies so but again they're funded you know they're

2:03:22

including studies

2:03:23